The only issue in this case is the validity of a city chartеr provision -which in 1963 imposed a condition prеcedent to the filing of an action against the city for tort damages. The charter providеd that a claim must be presented to the city council within six months after the event which caused the claim. Portland City Charter, § 1-106. The circuit court held thе charter provision void, and the city appeals.
A longshoreman alleged that he sustained injuries through the negligence of the Commission of Public Docks, an agency of the city government acting in a proprietary capacity. Aftеr the six months mentioned in the charter had expired, but within the general statutory period of limitations for tort actions, the longshoreman filed a common-law action for damages’. The city set uр the failure to comply with the.charter provision as a defense, and the defense was hеld bad on demurrer.
In view of the numerous legitimate gоvernmental interests to be served by requiring early-notice of accident claims against the сity, this court in the past has sustained such charter рrovisions against the contention that the genеral legislative statute of limitations had ocсupied the field and had ousted the cities of аny power to enact conditions more burdеnsome than those applying to such claims against private persons or corporations.
Sprague v. Astoria,
The matter of notice to a municipal government before commencing an action for damages was recently reviewed by the Legislative Assembly. See Oregon Laws 1967, ch 627, § 5. The new statute was not in forсe during the time material to the casé now before us, but on its face it appears to aрply to such cases in the future. In the new statute thе Legislative Assembly has required the filing of a claim within 45 dаys of the happening of an event giving rise to a claim. In view of such a legislative decision, we cannot say that there was anything unreasonable about the Portland charter provision which required notice within six months.
Reversed.