Gordon Sloan

This case involved pear orchard owners suing an irrigation district for damage from water seeping out of the defendant's canals and raising the water table on their land. The plaintiffs asserted claims for strict liability, intentional trespass, and negligence, but the trial court instructed the jury only on negligence, resulting in a defense verdict. On appeal, the Oregon Supreme Court held that the jury should have received a trespass instruction because the defendant maintained the canals with knowledge that water was seeping onto the plaintiffs' property, which constitutes an intentional invasion under traditional trespass principles. The court rejected the strict-liability theory, finding that irrigating land in a dry region is not an abnormally dangerous activity under the Rylands v. Fletcher rule as applied in Oregon. It reversed and remanded for a new trial limited to the trespass and negligence theories.

propertytorts & liability

The case involved the State Forester and a fire-fighting district seeking to recover costs from suppressing the Oxbow forest fire, which they alleged was started by the defendant's negligent operation of a road roller that emitted sparks. After state investigators examined and tested the roller without the defendant's consent while the fire was ongoing, the defendant moved to suppress all evidence obtained from those inspections on grounds that they violated the Fourth Amendment and the Oregon Constitution's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, treating the exclusionary rule as applicable in this civil cost-recovery action. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding that the exclusionary rule does not extend to this type of civil proceeding brought by the state to recover fire-suppression expenses, even assuming the inspections were improper, and remanded the case for further proceedings including on the defendant's equitable defense.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment to establish that a 60-foot strip of land shown as Broadway Street on an unrecorded 1909 plat had become a public street through implied dedication. The trial court ruled for the defendants, who held record title to the entire strip, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the clear and unequivocal intent required for an implied dedication because the plat was never approved or recorded, all relevant conveyances used metes-and-bounds descriptions without reference to the plat, and there was no evidence that purchasers relied on the plat or that the strip was ever developed or used as a street. The court noted that the strip remained in weeds or garden use and that the failure to assess it for taxes did not establish dedication.

property

This case concerned a dispute between two insurers over prorata contribution toward a judgment entered against a highway contractor after a truck accident on a state construction project. The plaintiff's policy covered the contractor directly, while the defendant's policy covered the Oregon State Highway Commission and its agents or employees; the plaintiff contended the contractor qualified as an insured under the defendant's policy and sought contribution after satisfying the judgment. The trial court ordered prorata contribution, and the appellate court affirmed. Although the court indicated the contractor was likely an independent contractor rather than an agent or employee, it held that the defendant had waived any defense based on untimely notice by denying coverage, thereby requiring contribution under the policies' other-insurance clauses.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a wrongful death claim against Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital filed on May 6, 1969, after the plaintiff's decedent died on January 11, 1967. The dispute centered on whether a 1967 amendment to Oregon's wrongful death statute, which extended the limitations period from two to three years, applied to the action. The trial court sustained a demurrer and dismissed the complaint under the prior two-year limit. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, ruling that statutes enlarging a limitations period apply to existing causes of action that had not yet been barred, as such amendments are not retroactive and do not impair vested rights.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved grocery sellers suing their longtime customers to recover the unpaid balance of $4,449.37 on a charge account for purchases made from 1951 to 1963, with the suit filed in 1969. The trial court applied the six-year statute of limitations to limit recovery to only recent charges, but the appellate court modified the judgment to award the full amount. The court held that the account did not qualify as a mutual open and current account under ORS 12.090 due to the absence of reciprocal demands. It further reasoned that the parties' 1959 agreement changed the credit terms to an indefinite period, so the limitations period began running only from the date of the last purchase rather than from each individual item.

procedurebusiness & regulatory