explaining that claims based on statutory liability “exist independent of any par- allel common-law claim and can be pleaded independently, with or without an accompanying common-law claim” and describing various ways that a statute may be used to sup- port a common-law negligence claim
How later courts described this case
- explaining that claims based on statutory liability “exist independent of any par- allel common-law claim and can be pleaded independently, with or without an accompanying common-law claim” and describing various ways that a statute may be used to sup- port a common-law negligence claim
- explaining that a “statutory tort” allows recovery of damages if the plaintiff can show that the damages suffered came about as a result of the violation of a statute which the legislature passed intending to give recourse to a group of plaintiffs
- recognizing that violations of the ORLTA give rise to a statutory tort
- a “statutory tort” allows recovery of damages if the plaintiff can show that the damages suffered came about as a result of the violation of a statute which the legislature passed intending to give recourse to a group of plaintiffs
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GILLETTE, J.,
concurring in part and specially concurring in part.
I join in all of the court’s opinion save for its discussion of the “importance” of statutory law. ( 306 Or 650 -651) That material is dicta, unnecessary to the decision or disposition of this case.
More importantly, at least to me, I am not sure that some of the cases relied upon for the discussion were correctly decided. The reasons for my doubts make no difference for the disposition of the present case. It is enough for the moment to note that I am not yet persuaded by this court’s opinion in Shahtout v. Emco Garbage Co., 298 Or 598 , 695 P2d 897 (1985), and I believe that Cain v. Rijken, 300 Or 706 , 717 P2d 140 (1986), probably was decided wrongly. My tentative disagreement with the latter and my doubts about the former cause me to be particularly disappointed that the majority sees fit to speak of them here. It will be difficult enough to make headway with respect to them in a case in which their holdings actually are implicated. The task is made that much harder when the cases are recited, in a sort of litany, before it is ever necessary to speak to their pertinence.