# Smith v. Cooper

> Oregon Supreme Court · September 18, 1970 · 256 Or. 485

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9604294

## Case

- **Full name:** SMITH, Appellant, v. COOPER Et Al, Respondents
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 18, 1970
- **Citations:** 256 Or. 485; 475 P.2d 78; 45 A.L.R. 3d 857; 1970 Ore. LEXIS 344
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Sloan
- **Judges:** Perry, McAllister, Sloan, O'Connell, Goodwin, Denecke, Holman
- **Cited by:** 80 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/9604294

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- observing that a defect in design or planning as “ludicrous” as a road designed to end at the edge of a cliff may be appropriately passed on by judge or jury

## Opinion text

*513 SLOAN, J.,
dissenting.
Assuming that the rationale of the majority opinion is correct in its attempt to solve the impossible distinction between discretionary and non-discretionary functions, it seems to me that the complaint does allege a cause of action of non-discretionary acts. The complaint is capable of being read to allege that defendants created a death trap and had reason to be aware of the hazard. The evidence may not sustain the allegations but the complaint does state a cause of action. The majority assume facts not alleged in order to reach the contrary result. A decision of this consequence, in its impact on the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 et seq. should not be based on assumption of fact.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9604294. Public record. Not legal advice.