# Ensign v. Marion County

> Court of Appeals of Oregon · March 27, 1996 · 140 Or. App. 114

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9534442

## Case

- **Full name:** Evdokia ENSIGN, Respondent, v. MARION COUNTY, Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Oregon
- **Decided:** March 27, 1996
- **Citations:** 140 Or. App. 114; 914 P.2d 5; 1996 Ore. App. LEXIS 432
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Haselton
- **Judges:** Deits, Haselton, Armstrong
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9534442

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that investigation done and report prepared by sheriffs board of review following a car accident was not a subsequent remedial measure

## Opinion text

*121 HASELTON, J.,
concurring.
I agree that the express “if taken previously” language of OEC 407 compels our holding. The obvious, and unfortunate, consequence is that public entities — including, particularly, law enforcement agencies — may forgo discretionary internal investigative processes so as to avoid generating inculpatory evidence. That, in turn, will subvert, not promote, public safety. Compare OEC 407 Commentary (1981) (noting that rule is based, in part, on “a social policy of encouraging people to take, or at least not discouraging them from taking, steps in furtherance of added safety”).
Still, the rule’s text admits of no other construction. The answer, if any, lies in legislative action, not judicial artifice. Cf. Abbotts v. Bacon, 133 Or App 315, 323 , 891 P2d 1321 (1995) (Haselton, J., dissenting).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9534442. Public record. Not legal advice.