464 P.3d 144
Or. Ct. App.2020Background
- Plaintiff was placed in foster care with the Sherman family in 1987 and suffered physical, sexual, verbal, and emotional abuse while a minor.
- Plaintiff obtained her DHS file in September 2016 and learned DHS knew of the abuse but failed to protect her.
- Plaintiff sued DHS in August 2017 alleging negligent certification/ supervision and a Vulnerable Person Act violation—more than 10 years after the abuse but within two years of her discovery.
- Trial court dismissed the complaint under ORS 12.115 (10-year statute of ultimate repose), reasoning ORS 30.275(9) (OTCA two-year limit) superseded ORS 12.117.
- Central statutory conflict: ORS 12.115 (ultimate repose), ORS 12.117 (child-abuse exception and extended limitation periods), and ORS 30.275(9) (OTCA two-year limitation "notwithstanding any other provision of ORS chapter 12").
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding ORS 12.117 exempts child-abuse claims from ORS 12.115 and ORS 30.275(9) does not supersede that exemption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ORS 12.117 prevents application of ORS 12.115’s 10-year statute of ultimate repose to child-abuse claims | Sherman: ORS 12.117 expressly excepts child-abuse claims from ORS 12.115 via its notwithstanding clause | DHS: ORS 12.117 does not apply to claims against public bodies; ORS 12.115 therefore still bars the claim | Held: ORS 12.117 excepts child-abuse claims from ORS 12.115; the statute of ultimate repose does not apply to such claims |
| Whether ORS 30.275(9) (OTCA two-year limit) supersedes ORS 12.117 in whole | Sherman: ORS 30.275(9) supersedes only the limitation-period provisions of ORS 12.117, not its exception to the repose statute | DHS: ORS 30.275(9)’s "notwithstanding" clause supersedes all of ORS 12.117, so ORS 12.115 still applies via ORS 30.265(6)(d) | Held: ORS 30.275(9) supersedes limitation periods but does not supersede ORS 12.117’s separate exception to the statute of ultimate repose |
| Whether plaintiff’s claims are time-barred | Sherman: Claim timely under ORS 12.117’s exception (filed within two years of discovery and not barred by ORS 12.115) | DHS: Claim barred by ORS 12.115 as applied to public bodies | Held: Claim is not barred by ORS 12.115; dismissal on repose grounds was error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (2009) (statutory interpretation framework: text, context, legislative history)
- Baker v. City of Lakeside, 343 Or 70 (2007) (interpreting OTCA "notwithstanding" clause to reach only statutes of limitation)
- Doe v. Lake Oswego School Dist., 353 Or 321 (2013) (discussing ORS 12.117’s application and OTCA two-year rule in discovery-rule context)
- O’Mara v. Douglas County, 318 Or 72 (1993) (function of a "notwithstanding" clause to except referenced provisions)
- Bell v. Tri-Met, 353 Or 535 (2013) (contextual statutory interpretation and related statutory framework)