336 October 2, 2014 No. 66

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

STATE OF OREGON

Ronald DOYLE

and Benedict Miller,

Plaintiffs-Respondents,

Petitioners on Review,

and

Robert DEUEL

and Charles Steinberg,

Plaintiffs-Respondents,

Cross-Appellants,

Petitioners on Review,

v.

CITY OF MEDFORD,

an Oregon Municipal corporation;

and Michael Dyal,

City Manager of the City of Medford,

in his official capacity and as an individual,

Defendants-Appellants,

Cross-Respondents,

Respondents on Review.

(CC 080137L7; CA A147497; SC S061463)

En Banc

On review from the Court of Appeals.*

Argued and submitted March 13, 2014, at the University 

of Oregon Law School, Eugene, Oregon.

Stephen L. Brischetto, Portland, argued the cause and 

filed the briefs for petitioners on review. With him on the 

briefs was George P. Fisher.

Robert E. Franz, Jr., Law Office of Robert E. Franz, Jr., 

Springfield, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondents on review.

______________

* Appeal from Jackson County Circuit Court, Mark S. Schiveley, Judge. 256 

Or App 625, 303 P3d 346 (2013).
Cite as 356 Or 336 (2014) 337

BREWER, J.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The case 

is remanded to that court for further proceedings.

Walters, J., concurred and filed an opinion, in which Baldwin, J., joined.

Plaintiffs retired from employment with the City of Medford and attempted 

to elect to continue the health insurance coverage that the city had provided to 

them as employees. The city declined to make that coverage available to plaintiffs because, it asserted, the cost of providing such coverage was prohibitive and 

the city’s health insurance plan did not include coverage for retirees. Plaintiffs 

brought this action against the city and its manager, asserting, among other 

claims for relief, a tort-based claim that the city was required by ORS 243.303(2) 

to make such coverage available to them. The circuit court concluded that the 

city had violated ORS 243.303(2) and that a private right of action was necessary to effectuate the intent of the legislature in enacting that statute. A jury 

awarded plaintiffs both economic and noneconomic damages for the city’s violation of the statute. On the city’s appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding 

that the circuit court erred because the legislature did not expressly or impliedly 

intend to create a right of action to enforce the city’s statutory duty under ORS 

243.303(2). The Court of Appeals did not address whether the court nevertheless 

should create such a right of action under its common law authority. Held: (1) 

The legislature did not intend, expressly or impliedly, to create a private right 

of action for the enforcement of the duty imposed by ORS 243.303(2); (2) the 

creation of a common-law right of action to enforce the city’s statutory duty was 

neither necessary nor appropriate to effectuate the legislature’s purpose; and (3) 

a declaratory judgment and supplemental relief would fully redress plaintiffs’ 

compensable injuries, if any, and that the plaintiffs have a claim for a determination of the parties’ rights and duties based on ORS 243.303(2) under the 

Declaratory Judgments Act.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to 

that court for further proceedings.
338 Doyle v. City of Medford

BREWER, J.

The issues presented in this case are whether 

ORS 243.303(2),1

 which requires local governments to 

make available to retired employees, “insofar as and to the 

extent possible,” the health care insurance coverage available to current officers and employees of the local government, creates a private right of action2

 for the enforcement 

of that duty; or, if not, whether this court should—under 

its common-law authority—provide such a right of action. 

The Court of Appeals held that the statute did not expressly 

or impliedly create a private right of action, and it considered that conclusion to be dispositive of plaintiffs’ claim for 

relief. Although we also conclude that the statute does not 

expressly or impliedly create a private right of action for its 

enforcement, that conclusion is not the end of our analysis. 

As explained below, where a statute imposes a legal duty, but 

there is no indication that the legislature intended to create 

1 ORS 243.303(2) provides:

“The governing body of any local government that contracts for or otherwise makes available health care insurance coverage for officers and employees of the local government shall, insofar as and to the extent possible, make 

that coverage available for any retired employee of the local government who 

elects within 60 days after the effective date of retirement to participate in 

that coverage and, at the option of the retired employee, for the spouse of the 

retired employee and any unmarried children under 18 years of age. The 

health care insurance coverage shall be made available for a retired employee 

until the retired employee becomes eligible for federal Medicare coverage, for 

the spouse of a retired employee until the spouse becomes eligible for federal 

Medicare coverage and for a child until the child arrives at majority, and 

may, but need not, be made available thereafter. The governing body may 

prescribe reasonable terms and conditions of eligibility and coverage, not 

inconsistent with this section, for making the health care insurance coverage 

available. The local government may pay none of the cost of making that 

coverage available or may agree, by collective bargaining agreement or otherwise, to pay part or all of that cost.”

(Emphasis added.)

2 By “right of action,” we refer to the right to bring a civil action based on a 

cognizable “claim for relief.” See generally ORCP 2 (“There shall be one form of 

action known as a civil action”); ORCP 18 A (describing claims for relief). A right 

of action, like a claim for relief, is distinguishable from a “remedy,” which is relief 

that may be available under a particular claim within a civil action. ORCP 18 B 

(describing demands for relief). Although the terms “right of action,” “claim for 

relief,” and “remedy” have sometimes been used interchangeably in judicial decisions and other authorities discussed in this opinion, for the sake of clarity we 

have undertaken to give those terms the particular meanings set out above when 

we use them here.
Cite as 356 Or 336 (2014) 339

(or not to create) a private right of action for its enforcement, 

courts must (if such relief is sought) determine whether the 

judicial creation of a common-law right of action would be 

consistent with the legislative provision, appropriate for promoting its policy, and needed to ensure its effectiveness.

Analyzing the duty imposed on local governments 

by ORS 243.303(2) under that standard, we decline to create 

an additional common-law right of action for its enforcement 

because (1) plaintiffs have failed to identify a cognizable 

common-law claim for relief whose creation is appropriate 

and necessary to effectuate the legislature’s purpose, (2) a 

declaratory judgment and supplemental relief are adequate 

to enforce the statutory duty, and (3) a significant change 

in existing law would result from judicial creation of a tort 

claim permitting the recovery of noneconomic damages in 

the circumstances here, and there is no other need to create 

a common-law tort claim where, as here, a declaratory judgment and supplemental relief would fully redress plaintiffs’ 

compensable injuries, if any. We also conclude that plaintiffs have a claim for a determination of the parties’ rights 

and duties under the statute that is actionable under the 

Declaratory Judgments Act.

Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of 

Appeals and remand to that court for a determination of the 

other issues that that court did not reach, including whether 

plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on the ground 

that the city violated ORS 243.303(2) as evaluated under 

ORS Chapter 28.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are retirees, each of whom retired from 

employment with the City of Medford and attempted to elect 

to continue the health insurance coverage that the city had 

provided to them as employees. The city declined to make 

that coverage available to plaintiffs because, among other 

reasons, the city’s health insurance plan that had applied 

to plaintiffs at the time of their retirements did not include 

coverage for retirees, and the city took the position that the 

cost of providing such coverage was prohibitive. Plaintiffs 

brought this action against the city and its manager, asserting, among other claims for relief, a tort-based claim that 
340 Doyle v. City of Medford

the city was required by ORS 243.303(2) to make such coverage available to them.3

 In that claim, plaintiffs alleged:

“Due to the defendant’s intentional conduct of not providing 

the opportunity for any plaintiff to participate in its health 

care insurance program upon their retirement, each plaintiff is unable to access benefits ORS 243.303(2) requires.”

Although plaintiffs alleged that the city intentionally did 

not provide them with an opportunity to participate in its 

health insurance program after they retired, plaintiffs did 

not allege that, in failing to do so, the city had intentionally, 

recklessly, or negligently violated the statute.

Plaintiffs alleged economic damages

“representing the difference between health care insurance 

premiums each has had to pay or will have to pay, that are 

higher than what each would have had to pay if they were 

allowed to participate in the city’s health care insurance 

program, and the difference in value of benefits between 

the city’s program and the lesser benefits each plaintiff 

receives from their present health care program, if applicable, and prejudgment interest on said economic damages.”

Plaintiffs also alleged noneconomic damages, in their ORS 

243.303(2) claim, in the amount of

“$500,000 representing each plaintiff’s mental stress, 

anxiety and discomfort due to their fear of losing health 

care insurance coverage for themselves and their dependents altogether, due to concern for their ability to pay for 

health care insurance they will have to find because they 

cannot choose to participate in the city’s health insurance 

program, and due to concern for whether any such coverage 

will be adequate to their and their dependent’s needs; and 

each plaintiff’s diminished health, vitality, and life expectancy due to the difference in health care services available 

to each plaintiff.”

3 Plaintiffs also filed an action in federal district court, asserting federal 

claims. Doyle v. City of Medford, 565 F3d 536, 541-42 (9th Cir 2009) (Doyle I). 

We described that action in our answer to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ 

certified questions regarding the meaning of ORS 243.303(2) in Doyle v. City of 

Medford, 347 Or 564, 227 P3d 683 (2010) (Doyle II). We discuss our decision in 

Doyle II in some detail below.
Cite as 356 Or 336 (2014) 341

In addition, plaintiffs re-alleged a paragraph from another 

claim in their complaint “seek[ing] declaratory relief,” and

plaintiffs asked for “such additional remedies, both legal 

and equitable, that the law provides and the Court deems 

just and proper.”

The city moved for partial summary judgment, 

arguing that ORS 243.303(2) did not require it to provide 

health insurance coverage to plaintiffs; alternatively, the 

city asserted that there is no civil remedy for a violation of 

ORS 243.303.

The circuit court denied the city’s motion, explaining that,

“[a]lthough the issue is not free of doubt, the court finds 

that upon application of the standards set forth in Miller v. 

City of Portland, 288 Or 271, 276-78, 604 P2d 1261 (1980) 

and Scovill v. City of Astoria, 324 Or 159, 165-69, 921 P2d 

1312 (1996), ORS 243.303 does provide plaintiffs with a 

private right of action * * *. The evidence is undisputed that 

the statute was amended more than 20-years ago to change 

the language about how municipalities treat their retirees 

with respect to health care insurance from a permissive 

‘may’ to the directive ‘shall,’ and that the change was made 

despite widespread objection that it would ‘force’ local government action. A private right of action is necessary to 

effectuate the legislature’s intent.”

The circuit court did not elaborate on the nature of the 

“private right of action” that it believed was necessary to 

effectuate the intent of the legislature in enacting ORS 

243.303(2) or determine whether the city had breached a 

tort standard of conduct in failing to provide insurance coverage to retirees. The circuit court rejected the city’s argument that, because providing insurance coverage to retirees 

was prohibitive in light of its cost, it had not violated the 

statute. The court explained that “[the city] ha[s] not presented the court with undisputed evidence that no entity 

providing health care insurance was (and is) willing to provide such coverage for both current and retired employees” 

and that, because the text of ORS 243.303(2) did not provide 

an exception to the statutory duty based on the cost of coverage, the court could not rely on increased cost as “indicating 

impossibility.”
342 Doyle v. City of Medford

Based on the same reasoning, the circuit court subsequently granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary 

judgment contending that the city violated ORS 243.303(2).

The parties then tried to a jury the issue of what damages 

plaintiffs had suffered as a result of the city’s violation of 

ORS 243.303(2). At the close of the evidence, the circuit 

court instructed the jury that

“plaintiffs Ronald Doyle and Ben Miller allege claims for 

a statutory tort. To establish a statutory tort, each plaintiff must show first that the defendant violated an Oregon 

statute and second, that the violation of statute caused the 

plaintiffs damages.

“In this case the court has already determined that 

defendant violated this statute by failing to provide plaintiffs Doyle and Miller the choice to continue group health 

insurance coverage.

“On the claim for violation of statute, the only issue for 

you to decide are whether the violation of statute caused 

Plaintiff Doyle and Plaintiff Miller damages and if so, the 

amount of such damages.”

The court further instructed the jury that noneconomic 

damages could be based on “emotional distress that the 

plaintiff has sustained from the time he was injured until 

the present and that the plaintiff probably will sustain in 

the future[,] *** any inconvenience and interference with 

the plaintiff’s normal and usual activities,” and “any other 

subjective non-monetary losses,” not to exceed the amount of 

$500,000. The jury awarded $61,142 in economic damages 

and $50,000 in noneconomic damages to Doyle, and $29,866 

in economic damages and $50,000 in noneconomic damages 

to Miller.

Plaintiffs and the city appealed the ensuing judgment.4

 Relying in part on this court’s decision in Scovill v. 

4 The circuit court granted the city’s motion for summary judgment on 

plaintiffs Deuel and Steinberg’s ORS 243.303(2) claims on statute of limitations 

grounds. Plaintiffs cross-appealed that ruling, and the Court of Appeals, after 

holding that ORS 243.303(2) did not provide a private right of action for damages, rejected that cross-appeal as moot. Doyle v. City of Medford, 356 Or App 

625, 652, 303 P3d 346 (2013). That aspect of the Court of Appeals’ decision is not 

before us on review.
Cite as 356 Or 336 (2014) 343

City of Astoria, 324 Or 159, 921 P2d 1312 (1996), the Court 

of Appeals reversed, concluding that the circuit court had 

erred in granting plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary 

judgment; the Court of Appeals held that ORS 243.303(2) 

did not create a private right of action sounding in tort. 

The Court of Appeals reasoned, first, that “the statute 

itself makes no provision for a private right of action,” and 

although such an action may be implied from the text and 

context of a statute, “the legislature knows how to make 

[such an intent] explicit,” and “the absence of an express 

statement supports an inference that a private right of 

action was not contemplated.” Doyle v. City of Medford, 256 

Or App 625, 640, 303 P3d 346 (2013). Second, the court 

found “no textual or contextual clues from which we can 

infer that the legislature contemplated the possibility of a 

private right of action.” Id. As the court explained, “[t]he 

creation of an obligation, in and of itself, is not enough to 

show an intention to provide injured persons with a right of 

action.” Id. The court reasoned that, because the “insofar as 

and to the extent possible” phrase in ORS 243.303(2) rendered the obligation imposed by the statute “indefinite,” the 

legislature “did not contemplate a private right of action.” 

Id. at 641. “In the absence of some indication that a private 

right of action was contemplated,” the court concluded, “the 

degree of flexibility and discretion accorded to the local 

government is inconsistent with an intention that the statute be enforceable through a private action for damages.” 

Id. The court also stated that, because “the legislature did 

not contemplate that there could be liability in connection 

with the failure to carry out the obligation described in ORS 

243.303,” it would “not address the second inquiry described 

in Scovill, whether the court should accord plaintiffs a civil 

remedy.” Id. at 641 n 6.

Plaintiffs petitioned for review of the Court of 

Appeals’ decision. Pursuant to ORAP 9.20(2), this court 

limited its grant of review to determining whether Oregon 

law provides “retired public employees a civil remedy for 

breach of the duty to make group health insurance coverage 

available to retirees under ORS 243.303.” We also invited 

the parties to discuss the application of this court’s decision 

in Scovill to that statute.
344 Doyle v. City of Medford

On review, plaintiffs assert that ORS 243.303(2) 

impliedly created a private right of action sounding in tort 

to enforce the city’s duty and that, even if it did not, the 

circuit court nonetheless properly concluded that judicial 

creation of a common-law right of action serves to enforce 

the duty.5

 Among other arguments, the city replies that the 

absence of any indication in the text of ORS 243.303(2) that 

the legislature intended to create such a right is dispositive, 

and that the Court of Appeals correctly reversed the circuit 

court’s judgment for that reason. In the city’s view, this court 

went astray in several previous decisions by suggesting that 

a court may provide a private right of action for violation of 

a statutory duty where the legislature has not expressly or 

impliedly conferred such a right.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Statutory Liability

Statutory liability arises when a statute either 

expressly or impliedly creates a private right of action for 

the violation of a statutory duty.6 Nearing v. Weaver, 295 Or 

702, 707, 670 P2d 137 (1983). Whether a statute does so is a 

question of statutory interpretation. Scovill, 324 Or at 166. 

To prevail on a statutory liability claim, a plaintiff must 

be within the class of persons that the legislature intended 

to protect, and the harm must be of the sort that the legislature intended to prevent or remedy. Bellikka v. Green,

306 Or 630, 634-35, 762 P2d 997 (1988). Because such a 

claim arises from a statutory duty that the legislature 

meant to be enforced, it “stands and falls with the statute 

under which it is asserted, and it disappears as soon as the 

5 Consistently with that premise, on review plaintiffs frame the issue this 

way:

“If permitting a tort action in the circumstances alleged in the case is consistent with and serves to enforce the legislated duty imposed by the statute, the 

court may accord a civil remedy to the injured party.”

6 We use the term “statutory liability” here because it is a more precise term 

than “statutory tort,” a term used by the parties in this case and at times, by this 

court. See, e.g., Scovill, 324 Or at 171 (setting out inquiry for “[r]ecognition of a 

statutory tort.”). As this court noted in Bellikka v. Green, 306 Or 630, 635, 762 

P2d 997 (1988), “Statutory liability is not necessarily ‘tort’ liability, a characterization that might affect issues such as the measure of damages or the statute 

of limitations[.]” We reiterate, however, that the parties have treated plaintiffs’ 

pertinent claims in this case as sounding in tort.
Cite as 356 Or 336 (2014) 345

statute is repealed or amended.” Bob Godfrey Pontiac, Inc. 

v. Roloff, 291 Or 318, 342, 630 P2d 840 (1981) (Linde, J., 

concurring).7

The legislature sometimes has expressly imposed 

civil liability for the violation of a statutory duty. See, e.g.,

ORS 607.044 (“A person shall be liable to the owner or lawful possessor of land if the person permits an animal of a 

class of livestock to run at large upon such land and the 

land is located in a livestock district in which it is unlawful 

for such class of livestock to be permitted to run at large.”). 

In other circumstances, this court has considered whether 

legislative intent to create a private right of action for violation of a statutory duty is implied by the text, context, or 

legislative history of the statute creating the duty. See, e.g.,

Chartrand v. Coos Bay Tavern Inc., 298 Or 689, 696, 696 P2d 

513 (1985) (by enacting ORS 30.950, the legislature “stat[ed] 

or impl[ied] in reverse language, that a tavern owner will be 

held liable for the acts of a person who has been served alcoholic liquor while visibly intoxicated.”); Nearing, 295 Or at 

710-711 (where mandatory arrest statute, ORS 133.310(3), 

did not expressly create a right of action, such a right was 

implied by the grant of immunity from civil liability to police 

officers under ORS 133.315 for arrests made in good faith 

and without malice pursuant to ORS 133.310(3)).

In determining whether the legislature impliedly 

intended to create a private right of action for violation of a 

statutory duty, this court has generally focused on two factors: (1) whether the statute refers to civil liability in some 

way, Chartrand, 298 Or at 696; Nearing, 295 Or at 708; and 

(2) whether the statute provides no express remedy, civil or 

otherwise, for its violation and, therefore, there would be 

no remedy of any sort unless the court determined that the 

7 Statutory liability is distinct from the tort theory of “negligence per se.” See 

Chartrand v. Coos Bay Tavern Inc., 298 Or 689, 695-96, 696 P2d 513 (1985) (plaintiff injured by customer served alcohol by tavern in violation of ORS 471.410(1) 

could proceed on theories of negligence, negligence “as a matter of law” for the 

tavern’s violation of ORS 471.410(1), or on a “statutory tort” theory, implied by the 

text of ORS 30.950). Negligence per se is a shorthand descriptor for a judicially 

recognized negligence claim based on a duty that is imposed by a statute or regulation. Abraham v. T. Henry Const. Inc., 350 Or 29, 36 n 5, 249 P3d 534 (2011); 

see also Shahtout v. Emco Garbage Co., 298 Or 598, 601, 695 P2d 897 (1985). 

Negligence per se is not at issue in this case.
346 Doyle v. City of Medford

legislature impliedly created one or the court itself provided 

one. Chartrand, 298 Or at 696; Nearing, 295 Or at 708-10.

B. Judicial Creation of a Common-Law Right of Action for 

Violation of a Statutory Duty

If a statute that imposes a duty neither expressly 

nor impliedly creates a private right of action for its violation—that is, where there is no indication in the text, context, or legislative history of the statute that the legislature 

did (or did not) intend to create a right of action to enforce 

the duty—this court nevertheless has stated that, in limited 

circumstances, it will judicially create a common-law right 

of action to redress the violation.

In Burnette v. Wahl, 284 Or 705, 588 P2d 1105 (1978), 

this court acknowledged the existence of such authority but 

declined to provide a private right of action on behalf of children who had been abandoned by their parents arising from 

the parents’ violation of a statute prohibiting child abandonment. The court explained:

“The establishment by courts of a civil cause of action 

based on a criminal or regulatory statute is not premised 

upon legislative intent to create such an action. It is obvious 

that had the legislature intended a civil action it would have 

provided for one, as legislatures many times do. Therefore, 

the underlying assumption is that it was not intended that 

the statute create any civil obligation or afford civil protection against the injuries which it was designed to prevent. 

When neither the statute nor the common law authorizes 

an action and the statute does not expressly deny it, the 

court should recognize that it is being asked to bring into 

existence a new type of tort liability on the basis of its own 

appraisal of the policy considerations involved. If a court 

decides to create a cause of action for the act or omission 

which violates the statute, the interest which is invaded 

derives its protection solely from the court, although the 

legislative action in branding the act or omission as culpable is taken into consideration by the court in deciding 

whether a common law action should be established. If a 

civil cause of action based upon a statute is established by 

a court, it is because the court, not the legislature, believes 

it is necessary and desirable to further vindicate the right 

or to further enforce the duty created by statute.
Cite as 356 Or 336 (2014) 347

“Because it is plain to the legislature that it could have 

created the civil liability and it has not, courts must look 

carefully not only at the particular statute establishing the 

right or duty but at all statutes which might bear either 

directly or indirectly on the legislative purpose. If there is 

any chance that invasion into the field by the court’s establishment of a civil cause of action might interfere with the 

total legislative scheme, courts should err on the side of 

non-intrusion because it is always possible for the legislature to establish such a civil cause of action if it desires. 

Courts have no omnipotence in the field of planning, particularly social planning of the kind involved here. Courts 

should exercise restraint in fields in which the legislature 

has attempted fairly comprehensive social regulation.”

Id. at 711-12 (footnote omitted).

In Burnette, this court looked not only to the statutes that criminalized child abandonment and nonsupport 

and that the plaintiffs asserted accorded them a private 

right of action to recover emotional distress damages; it also 

examined statutes that comprehensively regulated assistance to children and families. See Burnette, 284 Or at 708-

10. As the court elaborated:

“There is no doubt * ** that the statutory provisions 

previously cited show a strong state policy of requiring 

the kind of parental nurturing, support and physical care 

of children which the defendants here are alleged to have 

denied their children. As previously indicated, it does not 

follow as a matter of course that it would be wise or judicious to vindicate that policy by a tort action for damages 

by children against their mothers. The state also has other 

policies within its statutory plan of which such a cause 

of action may well be destructive, particularly the policy 

of reuniting abandoned children with their parents, if 

possible.”

Id. at 712.

This court conducted a similar analysis in Miller v. 

City of Portland, 288 Or 271, 604 P2d 1261 (1980). In that 

case, the court declined to accord to minors who had injured 

themselves while intoxicated, after illegally purchasing 

alcohol from licensed alcohol sellers—who, in selling to 

the minors had violated ORS 471.130(1)—a private right 
348 Doyle v. City of Medford

of action for the seller’s violation of the statute. The court 

explained that

“criminal or regulatory statutes are frequently enacted to 

cover situations in which no common law right of action 

has ever been established by courts. One of the most usual 

situations concerns injuries incurred by a person who has 

been given and has used alcohol. The statutes may have 

express provisions for a tort right of action. When such 

statutes exist, courts must, of course, comply. On the other 

hand, regulatory and criminal statutes most often contain no express provision for a right of action and, where 

courts have established no common law rights under the 

circumstances governed by the statutes, a different kind 

of problem is posed from the negligence per se situation. In 

such cases, courts attempt to determine legislative intent 

as to civil liability from whatever sources are available to 

them; and, if determinable, courts follow that intent. The 

most usual sources of information are the language of the 

statute itself including the title and preamble, as well as 

the legislative history. If these sources fail to disclose legislative intent, courts usually come to the conclusion that the 

problem was not contemplated by the legislature and that 

it had no specific intent. In such a state of affairs, courts 

must still make a decision and they then attempt to ascertain how the legislature would have dealt with the situation had it considered the problem. This is usually done by 

looking at the policy giving birth to the statute and determining whether a civil tort action is needed to carry out 

that policy. In this latter instance, if action is taken by the 

court establishing a cause of action, it is in furtherance of 

legislative purpose, but the modification of the law is judicial rather than legislative.”

Id. at 277-78 (footnote omitted). The court referred the 

reader to Restatement (Second) of Torts § 874A (1979) for “a 

further and more detailed discussion of the entire subject.” 

Id. at 279 n 9.

In Miller, this court determined the legislature’s 

purpose by looking to two statutes: ORS 471.130(1) and 

ORS 471.430. The first statute proscribed the selling of 

liquor to minors by licensees, and the second criminalized 

the purchase of liquor by minors. The court in Miller ultimately concluded that it would be “inappropriate to use ORS 

471.130(1) as a basis for civil liability by licensees to the 
Cite as 356 Or 336 (2014) 349

underage minor,” because “[i]t would be inconsistent with 

the apparent legislative policy to reward the violator with 

a cause of action based upon his or her conduct which the 

legislature has chosen to prohibit and penalize.” Id. at 279. 

The court also declined to provide a right of “action for physical injuries to minors caused by their illegal purchase of 

alcoholic liquor,” because doing so would also be “contrary to 

apparent legislative policy.” Id.

In Bob Godfrey Pontiac, Inc., this court concluded 

that conduct allegedly violating a statute setting out ethics 

obligations for attorneys did not give rise to a private right 

of action in favor of an opposing litigant. The court found 

“nothing in the statute or legislative history to indicate that 

the legislature intended that there should be liability for 

violation of its provisions.” 291 Or at 329. Accordingly, the 

court concluded, “this court must decide, on the basis of its 

own appraisal of the policy considerations involved, whether 

to bring into existence a new type of tort liability” for violations of the statute. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). After reviewing its previous decisions in Burnette and 

Miller, this court stated that

“it appears that although this court has stated circumstances under which it would ‘create’ or ‘recognize’ a 

new cause of action for damages for violation of a statute when there is no ‘underlying’ common law cause of 

action, the court has never done so to this date. Indeed, 

this court has said, in effect, in Burnette, that in a doubtful case it would not do so, but would leave the matter to 

the legislature.”

Bob Godfrey Pontiac, Inc., 291 Or at 328-29. The court ultimately “decline[d] to ‘create’ or ‘recognize’ a new private 

cause of action” for violation of the statute, because doing 

so was “not necessary to carry out the policy of the statute 

and would be inconsistent with long-established rules and 

policies.” Id. at 332, 337. In particular, the court concluded 

that the bar disciplinary process set out a comprehensive 

scheme for the adjudication and remediation of ethical violations and that recognizing an independent private right 

of action sounding in tort for such violations would not 

advance the legislative purposes underlying the pertinent 

statute.
350 Doyle v. City of Medford

Finally, in Cain v. Rijken, 300 Or 706, 717 P2d 140 

(1986), this court created a new private right of action for the 

tort of negligence based on the alleged violation of a statute 

that neither expressly nor impliedly created such a right. 

Cain was killed when his car collided with a vehicle driven 

by Rijken. Cain’s personal representative sued Providence 

Medical Center for negligently failing to supervise or control Rijken. Id. at 708. At the time of the accident, Rijken 

had been conditionally released by the Psychiatric Security 

Review Board to a day treatment program of Providence, 

which provided community mental health services under 

ORS 161.390(3), which stated that Providence may take a 

person such as Rijken into custody but did not mandate such 

action.

No common-law right of action previously had been 

recognized in the circumstances presented in Cain. The 

court nevertheless created a private right of action based 

on a claim for relief that included the usual elements of 

common-law negligence. It noted:

“In the present case, defendant’s obligation to supervise 

Rijken’s conduct for the protection of the public was imposed 

by sources other than the common law of negligence. * ** ** 

[O]ne who violates a statute enacted for the protection of 

others may be civilly liable in damages for injuring the protected interest even when there is no corresponding common law basis for recovery.”

Id. at 715-16. The court further stated that “[c]ommon law 

principles of reasonable care and foreseeability of harm are 

relevant because this case does not fall within a mandated 

statutory duty.” Id.at 717.

This court later described Chartrand, Nearing, and 

Cain as having “recognized ‘statutory tort’ duties in contexts where no common-law duty exists but where a statute or ordinance created a special duty owed by a defendant 

to a plaintiff, usually arising from the status of the parties 

or the relationship between them.” Nelson v. Lane County, 

304 Or 97, 107-08, 743 P2d 692 (1987). Although that statement is correct, it does not capture a fundamental difference between Chartrand and Nearing on the one hand, and 

Cain on the other. In the first two cases, this court concluded 
Cite as 356 Or 336 (2014) 351

that the legislature intended to create statutory liability, 

whereas, in Cain, the legislature had established a statutory duty, but this court had provided a common-law right 

of action to enforce that duty. That distinction is reinforced 

by the principles set out in section 874A of the Restatement 

(Second) of Torts.

C. The Restatement Approach to Judicial Creation of a 

Private Right of Action for Violation of a Statutory Duty

Restatement section 874A sets out principles to 

guide judicial determinations of whether to create a private 

right of action to enforce a statutory duty where there is 

no indication that the legislature intended to create or deny 

such a right of action. As noted, this court has looked to 

that provision for guidance in this area of the law. See, e.g.,

Bob Godfrey Pontiac, Inc., 291 Or at 329-30 (analyzing a 

statutory duty claim under section 874A); Miller, 288 Or at 

279 n 9 (referring the reader to that provision); Burnette, 

284 Or at 725-26 (Linde, J. dissenting) (referring to section 

874A as indicating that sometimes “a common law court will 

assimilate the statutory duty into an existing principle of 

liability, as for instance [a] negligence action ***, but that is 

not always so”). Section 874A provides:

“When a legislative provision protects a class of persons 

by proscribing or requiring certain conduct but does not 

provide a civil remedy for the violation, the court may, if it 

determines that the remedy is appropriate in furtherance 

of the purpose of the legislation and needed to assure the 

effectiveness of the provision, accord to an injured member 

of the class a right of action, using a suitable existing tort 

action or a new cause of action analogous to an existing tort 

action.”

In such cases, comment d to section 874A sets out the pertinent inquiry:

“If the court has reached the conclusion that the legislative body did actually have the intent either to establish 

a civil remedy to protect and enforce the right or to limit 

the relief to that expressly provided for in the legislative 

provision, the issue is settled, and the court is warranted 

in declaring that it is complying with the legislative intent. 

On the other hand, if the court does not reach either conclusion regarding the actual intent of the legislative body, but 
352 Doyle v. City of Medford

recognizes instead that that body had no specific intent in 

fact on the issue, the question of what it should do remains 

before the court. It must decide this question on its own 

because there is no automatic answer depending entirely 

upon a finding of an objective fact.

“Courts often continue to speak of legislative intent in 

this situation, but this should be with the realization that 

under these circumstances they are using the expression in 

a figurative, rather than a literal, sense. ‘Intent’ has a different meaning. It is sometimes thought of as referring to 

how the legislative body ‘would have dealt with the concrete 

situation’ if it had had the situation before it in the away in 

which it is now before the court. Perhaps more frequently, 

the figurative search for legislative intent involves looking 

for the policy behind the legislative provision, attempting 

to perceive the purpose for which it was enacted, and then, 

having ascertained that policy or purpose, determining the 

most appropriate way to carry it out and identifying the 

remedy needed to accomplish that result.

“This process requires policy decisions by the court, and 

it should be aware of them and face them candidly. In these 

cases, it is the court itself that is according the civil remedy to the injured party. The action is in furtherance of the 

purpose of the legislation and is stimulated by it, but what 

is involved is judicial rather than legislative modification 

of the existing law. The court is not required to provide 

the civil remedy, yet judicial tradition gives it the authority 

to do this under appropriate circumstances. The court has 

discretion and it must be careful to exercise that discretion 

cautiously and soundly.”[8]

Courts undertaking such an inquiry must determine the nature and dimensions of the legislative purpose 

8 By contrast, comment c to section 874A refers to the circumstance when the 

legislature expressly or impliedly intended to create a private right of action for 

violation of a statutory duty:

“If the court determines that the legislative body did actually intend for 

civil liability to be imposed or not imposed, whether the intent is explicit or 

implicit, then the court should treat the situation as if it had expressly so 

provided.

“If this was the intent of the legislative body, a study of the text of the 

provision, including the title and preamble, if any, will often disclose the fact. 

Tracing the legislative history may sometimes prove helpful. Some courts 

give careful attention to this course, while others decline to allow it to be 

considered at all.”
Cite as 356 Or 336 (2014) 353

or purposes embedded in the statutory provision at issue. 

Restatement § 874A comment i. After identifying the legislative purpose underlying the statute, the court must determine whether to create a common-law right of action for 

violation of the statutory duty. The court’s determination in 

that regard is guided by a variety of legal and prudential 

considerations. As noted, section 874A sets out pertinent 

factors to be considered in comment h, which provides:

“Factors affecting the determination of whether the 

court should provide a tort remedy. The primary test for 

determining whether the courts should provide a tort 

remedy for violation of the legislative provision is whether 

the remedy is consistent with the legislative provision, 

appropriate for promoting its policy and needed to ensure 

its effectiveness.

“Among the factors to which a court may be expected to 

give consideration in determining whether a tort remedy is 

appropriate and needed are the following:

“(1) The nature of the legislative provision. How specific is the legislative provision in its regulation of conduct? 

Does it clearly let both the court and the actor know in 

advance what conduct is prohibited? Or is it posed in broad, 

general terms that will acquire specific meaning only if—

and after—the court has determined to supply the tort 

remedy and expressed it for the benefit of the persons being 

affected? Criminal statutes are more likely to be utilized 

by a court for this purpose; generalized constitutional provisions are less likely to be utilized but may nevertheless 

be used if a fundamental right is involved. In the case of 

an administrative regulation, the court will also look with 

care at the text of the statute sanctioning or directing the 

promulgation of the regulation, to ascertain whether supplying the tort remedy will be in furtherance of the policy 

underlying that statute too ***.

“(2) The adequacy of existing remedies. Consideration 

is given first to the remedies provided for in the legislative 

provision itself. Are they sufficient to effectuate the policy 

of the legislation or do they require supplementation? What 

other remedies are available in the court’s repertoire and 

how effective will they be? Will a declaratory judgment or 

the granting of an injunction prove better than the damage 

remedy because it is easier to administer or more effective? 

Do several remedies need to be available to the plaintiff 
354 Doyle v. City of Medford

either at his election or at the determination of the court in 

light of the particular facts?

“(3) The extent to which the tort action will aid or 

supplement or interfere with existing remedies and other 

means of enforcement. If application of the legislation has 

been placed in the hands of an administrative agency, for 

example, this may have been done with the intent that the 

agency exercise a discretionary enforcement or treat the 

matter from an administrative standpoint. To a certain 

extent this may also be true of criminal law enforcement, 

with the prosecutor being able to exercise considerable discretion. In the case of a tort action, on the other hand, the 

plaintiff is concerned only with whether it is in his own 

interest to bring the action, and enforcement is more rigid 

in one respect and perhaps more haphazard in another. 

Is this good or bad in regard to the particular legislation? 

How far are prosecutors or administrative agencies likely 

to prove ineffective because of understaffing or apathy? 

Will the tort action provide a greater deterrent and be 

more likely to insure compliance with the law? Is it likely 

to impose too heavy, or too erratic, a penalty, if the amount 

awarded depends upon the measure of damage suffered by 

the particular plaintiff rather than the measure of fault on 

the part of the defendant? Will the deterrent effect of the 

tort action apply not just to the forbidden conduct but also 

to participation in the general activity at all? Are the damages objectively ascertainable in terms of measurable compensation for loss or injury, or are they necessarily left to 

the unguided determination of a jury? Will the availability 

of an injunctive remedy in a civil action, as distinguished 

from a criminal prosecution, enable the court to exercise 

tighter control? Is relief in the form of compensation after 

the event adequate or should injunctive relief to prevent the 

injury be granted?

“(4) The significance of the purpose that the legislative body is seeking to effectuate. How important is the policy behind the legislative provision? How important is the 

interest protected? Does it involve a fundamental right or a 

minor matter? Is it adequately protected by a remedy that 

merely attempts to prevent an interference with it, or is it 

of sufficient importance to require compensation when the 

attempt at prevention does not succeed?

“(5) The extent of the change in tort law. How drastic is the change from established law? How near is the 
Cite as 356 Or 336 (2014) 355

factual situation before the court to an existing tort? Was 

the law already moving in this direction so that the step to 

include this factual situation in the scope of an existing tort 

is merely accelerated or is the change radically inconsistent with traditional law? Would the change merely eliminate a historical anomaly or would it alter the fundamental nature of the established tort? Will the elements of the 

enlarged tort be difficult or easy to understand and apply? 

* * *.”

“(6) The burden that the new cause of action will place 

on the judicial machinery. Will a heavy flow of litigation 

result? Will the trials be time-consuming? Are they likely 

to involve heavily contested fact issues? Will one or two 

suits, whether civil or criminal, be likely to inhibit violations of the legislation or will the factual issues vary so 

much that numerous cases are likely to continue? This factor, of course, does not carry weight if a fundamental right 

is being impaired or other remedies are not adequate to 

protect it; but that factor may be persuasive if the right 

involved is not consequential or other means of protecting it 

are also available. Within this factor comes the question of 

whether the federal courts should take it upon themselves 

to provide a federal action under a federal statute or treat 

the matter as adequately handled in the state courts by 

tort remedies under the common law.”

The Restatement factors are not exclusive, but they 

are consistent with and, where applicable, supplement the 

factors that this court has considered in its previous decisions. For example, although this court did not specifically 

refer to it, the substance of the third factor in comment h 

played a significant role in its decisions not to create private 

rights of action in Burnette, Miller, and Bob Godfrey Pontiac, 

Inc. In each of those cases, the court stressed that such a 

right would interfere with the balance of policies embodied 

in a comprehensive statutory scheme. Bob Godfrey Pontiac, 

Inc., 291 Or at 332, 337; Miller, 288 Or at 279; Burnette, 284 

Or at 712.

D. Scovill: Statutory Liability or a Judicially Provided 

Private Right of Action?

In Cain, Bob Godfrey Pontiac, Inc., Miller, and

Burnette, this court reached the issue of whether it should 

create a common-law right of action for a statutory violation 
356 Doyle v. City of Medford

after having determined that no legislative intent to create 

a right of action was discernible. However, in Scovill, this 

court followed a somewhat different analytical path, which 

has been a subject of contention between the parties in this 

case and among other observers.9

 We take this opportunity 

to clarify the basis for our decision in that case.

In Scovill, the plaintiff’s decedent died after she 

walked out of an Astoria police station and into a street, 

where she was struck by a passing truck. The decedent had 

been brought to the station by a friend because she was visibly intoxicated and disoriented. 324 Or at 165. The decedent’s personal representative brought an action against the 

City of Astoria, alleging that the officers on duty had violated ORS 426.460(1) (1989) by allowing her to leave the station in a visibly intoxicated state. Id. That statute provided:

“Any person who is intoxicated or under the influence of 

controlled substances in a public place may be taken or sent 

home or to a treatment facility by the police. However, if the 

person is incapacitated, the health of the person appears 

to be in immediate danger, or the police have reasonable 

cause to believe the person is dangerous to self or to any 

other person, the person shall be taken by the police to an 

appropriate treatment facility. A person shall be deemed 

incapacitated when in the opinion of the police officer or 

director of the treatment facility the person is unable to 

make a rational decision as to acceptance of assistance.”

This court began its analysis by framing its inquiry:

“[A]n examination of ORS 426.460(1) and ORS 426.470 

to determine whether, when read together, those statutes 

either (1) create a duty, the breach of which could be tortious to one harmed as a result of that breach, or (2) enacts 

a standard of care, violation of which would constitute negligence per se. Whether a statute creates a duty, or enacts 

a standard of care, is determined by discerning what the 

legislature intended.”

Scovill, 324 Or at 166. The court emphasized that its task 

was “to discern the legislature’s intent” and that, in carrying out that task, the court would look “at the text and 

9 See Caroline Forrell, Statutory Torts, Statutory Duty Actions, and Negligence 

Per Se: What’s the Difference?, 77 Or L Rev 497, 517-21 (1998) (critically analyzing 

Scovill).
Cite as 356 Or 336 (2014) 357

context of [the] statutes *** because they are the best evidence of the legislature’s intent.” Id. (citing PGE v. Bureau 

of Labor & Indus., 317 Or 606, 610, 859 P2d 1143 (1993)). In 

interpreting ORS 426.460(1) (1989), the court treated ORS 

426.470 (1989) as important context. The latter statute provided, in part:

“No peace officer ** * shall be held criminally or civilly 

liable for actions pursuant to ORS 426.450 to 426.470 ** * 

provided the actions are in good faith, on probable cause 

and without malice.”

Because ORS 426.460(1)—by its use of the mandatory term “shall”—required officers to take a visibly intoxicated person to a treatment facility when the other requirements of the statute were met, the court concluded that the 

statute imposed a statutory duty. Scovill, 324 Or at 168. The 

court found a parallel between the statutes at issue before 

it and the mandatory arrest statutes at issue in Nearing

because, in the second sentence of ORS 426.460(1), the legislature declined to grant officers any discretion whether to 

take a visibly intoxicated person to a treatment facility; that 

absence of discretion established a mandatory duty on the 

part of the officers. Id. at 169; cf. Nearing, 295 Or at 708-10.10

ORS 426.470 (1989) reinforced that understanding, because

“the term ‘actions’ and the statutory section references to 

which such actions are to be ‘pursuant’ indicate that the 

provisions in ORS 426.470 concerning liability apply only 

when there are actions. The statute does not address failure to carry out the statutory duty. That is, ORS 426.470 

declares that ‘actions’ to send a person home or to take the 

person to a detoxification facility, and other actions arising 

therefrom, are actions for which an officer ‘shall [not] be 

held’ liable, provided that those actions are in good faith, 

on probable cause, and without malice.”

10 As noted, above, in both Nearing and Scovill, this court looked to contextual statutes that provided for immunity from civil liability for acts pursuant to 

the statutes and that, in so doing, demonstrated that the legislature had contemplated civil liability for failures to act pursuant to the statutes. Such reasoning 

by negative implication frequently has been a focal point of this court’s statutory 

liability decisions. See, e.g., Scovill, 324 Or at 169; Chartrand, 298 Or at 695-96; 

Nearing, 295 Or at 708-10; see also Forrell, 77 Or L Rev at 503 (“[I]f the statute 

says that no liability exists in certain situations, by negative implication the statute may intend it to exist in other situations.”). 
358 Doyle v. City of Medford

Scovill, 324 Or at 168 (emphasis in original). Thus, the court 

concluded that

“the text and context of ORS 426.460(1) and ORS 426.470 

disclose a legislative intent to impose on the police a statutory duty to act on behalf of a publicly intoxicated person 

who is a danger to self and further disclose that failure to 

act as mandated was contemplated by the legislature to give 

rise to a potential liability in tort in circumstances in which 

the limitations stated in ORS 426.470 do not apply.”

Id. at 169 (emphasis added).

Having reached that conclusion, the court rejected 

the city’s argument that, under the statutory construction 

methodology set out in PGE, “no statutory tort can arise 

unless this court can hold that the legislature expressly

intended that a tort remedy would arise from breach of a 

duty created or imposed by statute.” Id. (emphasis in original). To the contrary, the court reasoned, “[A]s we believe 

our discussion above has made clear, the legislature did

contemplate that there could be liability in connection with 

the authority and duty to take the actions referred to in 

ORS 426.460(1) ** *.” Id. at 170 (emphasis in original). In 

short, because (1) the legislature had contemplated civil liability for failure to act pursuant to ORS 426.460(1) (1989);

(2) the decedent was a member of the class of persons that 

the statute was meant to protect; (3) the officers violated 

their statutory duty; and (4) the decedent lost her life as a 

consequence, ORS 426.460(1) impliedly created a right of 

action to remedy the statutory violation.

At that juncture, the court might well have concluded its analysis. Instead, however, the court continued:

“In the tort field, whether a statute that imposes a duty 

also gives rise to a tort claim for breach of that duty is generally a matter for court decision.”

Id. at 170 (emphasis added).

The court then stated in a footnote:

“Sometimes a statute expressly includes a statement 

that a civil action may be maintained for damages suffered by a violation of a statutory duty. For example, ORS 

30.780 provides that those who violate criminal statutes 
Cite as 356 Or 336 (2014) 359

regulating gambling ‘shall be liable in a civil suit for all 

damages occasioned thereby,’ even though there also is a 

criminal penalty for the violation. Conversely, the legislature could provide expressly that there be no claim available 

to one damaged by the breach of a specific duty imposed by 

a specific statute. The statutes at issue in this case provide 

no such clarification.

“However, the law waiving sovereign immunity having 

been enacted four years earlier by Oregon Laws 1967, chapter 627, the legislature was aware when it enacted ORS 

426.460(1) and ORS 426.470 that the government could 

commit a tort for which it would be legally responsible. The 

Oregon Tort Claims Act defines a tort, for purposes of that 

law, as a breach of a legal duty that is imposed by law, other 

than a contract, which results in injury to a specific person. 

But that definition also specifies that, to be tortious, the 

injury to person or persons is to be one ‘for which the law 

provides a civil right of action for damages or for a protective remedy.’ ORS 30.260(8). Thus, that definitional statute 

leaves open the question whether ‘the law provides a civil 

right of action.’ That remains the major issue in this case.”

Id. at 170-71 n 9 (emphasis added).

The court continued:

“Under what circumstances do the Oregon courts recognize 

that a tort claim may be predicated on a duty imposed by 

statute?

“One place to start a discussion of that question is with 

the provisions of Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 874A 

(1979), entitled ‘Tort Liability for Violation of Legislative 

Provision,’ which this court quoted with approval in [Bob 

Godfrey Pontiac, 291 Or at 330]. * **

“*****

“As comment (c) to section 874A indicates, the question of 

whether a tort remedy is needed to enforce a statutory duty 

may be affected by the fact that a specific remedy, such as 

a civil penalty, is provided by a statute. The statute before 

us does not require giving any weight to that consideration, 

however, because there is no alternate remedy provided by 

the statute for intoxicated persons with respect to whom 

there are reasonable grounds to believe that they are a 

danger to themselves and who, therefore, ‘shall be taken’ to 

an appropriate facility.
360 Doyle v. City of Medford

“Therefore, recognition of a statutory tort is governed 

by the weight that a court finds reasonable to give to the 

protective purpose spelled out in the legislation. Under 

those circumstances, Restatement comment (d) suggests 

that

“‘the question of what it should do still remains before 

the court. It must decide this question on its own because 

there is no automatic answer depending entirely 

upon a finding of an objective fact.

“‘*****

“‘* * * [I]t is the court itself that is according the civil 

remedy to the injured party. The action is in furtherance of the purpose of the legislation and is stimulated 

by it ***.’

“Permitting a tort action in the circumstances alleged in this 

case is consistent with and serves to enforce the legislated 

duty imposed by ORS 426.460(1), which does not specify 

other means for its enforcement.”

Scovill, 324 Or at 170-72 (emphases added).

The quoted discussion reveals a tension in the 

court’s reasoning. As noted, comment c to section 874A provides, in part, that, “if the court determines that the legislative body did actually intend for civil liability to be imposed 

or not imposed, whether the intent is explicit or implicit, then 

the court should treat the situation as if it had expressly so 

provided.” Comment c thus recognizes that a private right 

of action may be created by legislative implication—just as 

this court concluded in Nearing and Chartrand. When the 

court in Scovill referred to comment c, however, it did not 

discuss the above sentence. Instead, the court understood 

comment c to indicate that “the question of whether a tort 

remedy is needed to enforce a statutory duty may be affected 

by the fact that a specific remedy, such as a civil penalty, is 

provided by a statute.” Scovill, 324 Or at 171. Because ORS 

426.460(1) did not provide an alternate remedy “for intoxicated persons with respect to whom there are reasonable 

grounds to believe that they are a danger to themselves and 

who, therefore, ‘shall be taken’ to an appropriate facility,” 

the court in Scovill concluded that it was appropriate to turn 

to comment d to section 874A. Id.
Cite as 356 Or 336 (2014) 361

However, nothing in comment c suggests that legislative intent to create a private right of action for enforcement of a statutory duty cannot be inferred in the absence 

of a provision for an “alternate remedy” in the statute. To 

the contrary, as discussed, this court has held that the legislature impliedly created a right of action for the violation 

of a statutory duty where there otherwise would no remedy 

of any sort for a violation of the duty. Chartrand, 298 Or at 

696; Nearing, 295 Or at 708-10. Moreover, by its terms, comment d applies only where the court “does not reach either 

conclusion regarding the actual intent of the legislative body, 

but recognizes instead that that body had no specific intent 

in fact on the issue.” Because the court in Scovill concluded 

that “the legislature did contemplate that there could be 

liability in connection with the authority and duty to take 

the actions referred to in ORS 426.460(1),” 324 Or at 169-

70 (emphasis in original), it was inappropriate for the court 

to resort to the additional inquiry that comment d contemplates, and unnecessary to the result that the court reached. 

That said, as discussed above, this court recognized its 

authority to create a common-law right of action to enforce 

a statutory duty in several decisions preceding Scovill, and 

our conclusion that this court’s erroneous reliance on such 

authority in Scovill was unnecessary to its ultimate holding, 

does not itself call into question the continuing validity of 

those earlier decisions.

E. Does Judicial Creation of a Right of Action for Violation 

of a Statutory Duty Unlawfully Interfere with the 

Legislature’s Constitutional and Statutory Authority?

Focusing on the court’s statement in Scovill that 

“recognition of a statutory tort is governed by the weight 

that a court finds reasonable to give to the protective purpose spelled out in the legislation,” 324 Or at 171, the city 

argues that “[i]t should not be the court’s function to determine whether a statute provides a cause of action for damages if it is ‘reasonable,’ rather the court should apply the 

law as it is written consistent with the legislative intent.” In 

that respect, the city argues, Scovill and this court’s other 

decisions holding that a court may in certain circumstances 

provide a private right of action to enforce a statutory duty 

where the legislature did not intend either to create or deny 
362 Doyle v. City of Medford

such a right, are inconsistent with Article IV, section 1, of 

the Oregon Constitution,11 and this court’s statutory construction responsibilities under ORS 174.01012 and ORS 

174.020.13 We disagree.

Although the city reads those decisions as improperly condoning judicial usurpation of legislative authority, 

that understanding is inconsistent with the fundamental 

premise of a court’s exercise of its common-law authority. A 

right of action that a court provides under comment d is not 

“read into” a statute; rather, such a right is provided “because 

the court, not the legislature, believes it is necessary and 

desirable to further vindicate the right or to further enforce 

the duty created by the statute.” Burnette, 284 Or at 712.14

So understood, such a right of action is conceptually 

analogous to a negligence per se claim to the extent that both 

are judicially created based on common-law principles but 

depend on the existence of statutory duties. See Miller, 288 

Or at 276-77 (“If courts believe in given circumstances there 

11 Article IV, section 1, provides, in part:

“The legislative power of the state, except for the initiative and referendum powers reserved to the people, is vested in a Legislative Assembly, 

consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives.”

12 ORS 174.010 provides:

“In the construction of a statute, the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is, in terms or in substance, contained therein, not to 

insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted; and where 

there are several provisions or particulars such construction is, if possible, to 

be adopted as will give effect to all.”

13 ORS 174.020 provides:

“(1)(a) In the construction of a statute, a court shall pursue the intention 

of the legislature if possible.

“(b) To assist a court in its construction of a statute, a party may offer the 

legislative history of the statute. 

“(2) When a general and particular provision are inconsistent, the latter 

is paramount to the former so that a particular intent controls a general 

intent that is inconsistent with the particular intent.

“(3) A court may limit its consideration of legislative history to the information that the parties provide to the court. A court shall give the weight to 

the legislative history that the court considers to be appropriate.”

14 The city urges us, based on a series of California cases in which the appellate courts of that state declined to adopt Restatement section 874A, to reconsider 

this court’s reliance on the principles set out in that provision in Burnette, Bob 

Godfrey Pontiac, Inc., and Miller. Suffice it to say that the city’s arguments do not 

persuade us to revisit this court’s previous decisions.
Cite as 356 Or 336 (2014) 363

should be a common law cause of action, and there also are 

criminal or regulatory statutes which delineate the defendant’s conduct under such circumstances, courts may adopt 

the conduct required by the statutes as that which would be 

expected of a reasonably prudent person providing courts 

believe the statutorily required conduct to be appropriate for 

establishing civil liability.”). Bluntly, if the city’s view were 

correct, it is difficult to conceive how application of the doctrine of negligence per se likewise could avoid unlawfully 

impinging on the legislature’s authority. However, we are 

aware of no authority that so holds.

Consistently with this court’s previous decisions in 

Cain, Bob Godfrey Pontiac, Inc., Miller, and Burnette, and 

with the principles set out in section 874A of the Restatement, 

we reaffirm that, in proper circumstances, even when there 

is no indication that the legislature intended to create such 

a right, judicial creation of a private right of action for violation of a statutory duty does not unlawfully interfere with 

the legislature’s constitutional authority, nor does it violate 

this court’s statutory construction responsibilities.

F. Summary of Governing Principles

To summarize: When a party asserts a right of 

action to enforce a duty created by a statute, the first question is whether the statute expressly or impliedly indicates 

that the legislature intended to create or to deny such a right 

of action. That is a matter of statutory construction. If that 

inquiry discloses no discernible legislative intent to create 

or deny a right of action, the court must then decide whether 

creating a common-law right of action would be consistent 

with the statute, appropriate for promoting its policy, and 

needed to ensure its effectiveness. In making that determination, the court should consider, among the factors identified in Restatement section 874A along with any other pertinent factors, the nature of the legislative provision at issue, 

the adequacy of existing claims for relief and associated remedies, the extent to which a common-law right of action will 

aid, supplement, or interfere with existing claims and remedies and other means of enforcement, the significance of the 

purpose that the legislative body is seeking to effectuate, the 

extent of the change in existing common-law principles that 
364 Doyle v. City of Medford

provision of a right of action would produce, and the burden 

that the right of action would place on the courts.

G. ORS 243.303(2)

Before we apply those principles in this case, it 

is useful to consider this court’s prior construction of the 

nature of the duty created by ORS 243.303(2). Again, that 

statute provides:

“The governing body of any local government that contracts for or otherwise makes available health care insurance coverage for officers and employees of the local government shall, insofar as and to the extent possible, make that 

coverage available for any retired employee of the local government who elects within 60 days after the effective date 

of retirement to participate in that coverage and, at the 

option of the retired employee, for the spouse of the retired 

employee and any unmarried children under 18 years of 

age. The health care insurance coverage shall be made 

available for a retired employee until the retired employee 

becomes eligible for federal Medicare coverage, for the 

spouse of a retired employee until the spouse becomes eligible for federal Medicare coverage and for a child until the 

child arrives at majority, and may, but need not, be made 

available thereafter. The governing body may prescribe 

reasonable terms and conditions of eligibility and coverage, 

not inconsistent with this section, for making the health 

care insurance coverage available. The local government 

may pay none of the cost of making that coverage available 

or may agree, by collective bargaining agreement or otherwise, to pay part or all of that cost.”

(Emphasis added.)

We have previously held that ORS 243.303(2)

“creates an obligation for local governments to make health 

insurance available for retirees; however, we also conclude 

that the obligation is limited to making coverage available 

‘insofar as and to the extent possible,’ and that, depending 

on the circumstances, the local government may be excused 

entirely from its obligation if it can demonstrate that it was 

not possible, under the statutory standard, to make coverage available.”

Doyle II, 347 Or at 566. In reaching that conclusion, we 

rejected the city’s argument that the statute “merely provides 
Cite as 356 Or 336 (2014) 365

authorization to make health insurance coverage available 

to retirees, rather than mandating that coverage.” Id. at 

570. Rather, we concluded that the term “shall” “impose[d] 

an obligation on local governments.” Id. at 573. Accordingly, 

we rejected the city’s argument that it had “complete discretion to choose whether to make health insurance available 

to retirees.” Id.

We further concluded that, by using the phrase 

“insofar as and to the extent possible,” the legislature had 

intended to qualify the duty created by its use of the word 

“shall.” Id. In particular, by using that phrase, the legislature provided “some flexibility” to local governments in 

meeting the obligation imposed by ORS 243.303(2). Id. at 

574. We rejected the plaintiff’s argument that a local government could be relieved of its obligation only if providing health insurance to retirees was factually impossible, 

because the legislature’s use of the terms “insofar as” and 

“to the extent possible” “emphasize[d] the concept of degree 

or amount, indicating that the legislature did not view the 

health insurance coverage obligation as one that necessarily 

was either ‘possible’ or ‘not possible,’” but rather as a flexible 

obligation that “might be possible only to some degree or 

to some extent.” Id. Our examination of the legislative history of the 1985 amendment to ORS 243.303(2) confirmed 

that the phrase “insofar as and to the extent possible” “was 

intended to create flexibility within the statute as a whole.” 

Id. at 579.

In sum, this court concluded that the statute

“create[s] an obligation on local governments to make 

the health insurance coverage that they provide to active 

employees available to retired employees. *** Whether a 

local government has complied with ORS 243.303(2) will 

depend on whether it has made health insurance coverage 

available to retirees ‘insofar as and to the extent possible,’ 

in light of all the facts. The responsibility to demonstrate 

that it was not possible, under the statutory standard, to 

make coverage available to retirees rests with the local 

government, and we emphasize that the local government 

cannot make that showing, as the city attempts to here, 

by pointing solely to the fact that its chosen provider does 

not offer retiree health insurance coverage. Although the 
366 Doyle v. City of Medford

statutory standard is a legal one, determining whether 

a local government has demonstrated that it should be 

excused from making health insurance coverage available 

to retirees will depend on the facts of each case.”

Doyle II, 347 Or at 579.

The city renews here its argument from Doyle II 

that ORS 243.303(2) does not impose an obligation on local 

governments, because “the discretionary language ‘to the 

extent possible’ wipes out any mandatory duty supported 

by the use of the word ‘shall.’” The city relies on excerpts 

from the legislative history of the 1981 and 1985 amendments to ORS 243.303(2) for that proposition—excerpts 

that the city also proffered to this court in Doyle II. This 

court in Doyle II rejected the city’s argument that the legislature did not intend the term “shall” to have its ordinary, 

mandatory, meaning in ORS 243.303(2). The city advances 

no new support for that argument to persuade us that our 

decision in Doyle II was “seriously in error.” Farmers Ins. Co. 

v. Mowry, 350 Or 686, 695, 261 P3d 1 (2011) (citing Severy/

Wilson v. Board of Parole, 349 Or 461, 474, 245 P3d 119 

(2010)). Accordingly, we adhere to our prior construction of 

the statute—that is, that it imposed “an obligation on local 

governments to make the health insurance coverage that 

they provide to active employees available to retired employees” insofar as and to the extent that it is possible to do so. 

Doyle II, 347 Or at 579.

III. APPLICATION

We turn to the question of whether ORS 243.303(2) 

expressly or impliedly creates a private right of action for 

a local government’s asserted failure to comply with the 

statute’s command. It is undisputed that the text does not 

expressly do so. Accordingly, we look to the context and legislative history to determine whether the legislature nevertheless impliedly intended to create such a right of action in 

favor of plaintiffs. Scovill, 324 Or at 166.

As discussed, in previous cases in which this court 

has discerned an implied legislative intent to create statutory liability, references to civil liability in related statutes 

were important to the court’s conclusion. See, e.g., Scovill, 
Cite as 356 Or 336 (2014) 367

324 Or at 168-69 (provision of immunity from civil liability 

in ORS 426.470 for “acts pursuant” to ORS 426.460(1) supported conclusion that legislature intended to impose civil 

liability for statutory violations); Nearing, 295 Or at 708-

10. The parties have identified no such references in statutes related to ORS 243.303, and we have found none. Nor 

does the legislative history of ORS 243.303(2) include any

references—direct or indirect—to civil liability for a statutory violation.

Plaintiffs remonstrate that, despite the absence of 

any helpful evidence of legislative intent in the surrounding 

statutes or legislative history, “the legislature’s enactment of 

a mandate implicitly [shows that] the legislature intended 

to create a civil remedy to enforce the mandate” and, further, that this court’s decision in Doyle II “infers” that a private right of action exists to enforce ORS 243.303(2). We 

disagree with both arguments.

Plaintiff’s first argument reduces to the proposition 

that the imposition of a statutory duty necessarily creates 

an inference that the legislature also intended to confer a 

private right of action to enforce that obligation. To state 

the proposition is to refute it; many statutory obligations 

are enacted without any legislative intent to confer a private right of action on a person who is harmed by a violation of the statute. As discussed above, the determination of 

implied legislative intent is made through the statutory construction analysis prescribed in PGE and Gaines, including 

consideration of statutory context and legislative history. 

The mere existence of a statutory duty alone does not furnish a shortcut through the analysis.15

15 Describing the matter in terms of cross-cutting maxims of statutory construction, Restatement section 874A comment c makes the point this way:

“Resort is sometimes made to maxims of statutory construction. Here, as 

in other instances, however, these maxims point in opposite directions and 

therefore prove to be inconclusive. One maxim is Ubi ius ibi remedium, suggesting that if the legislature created a right it must have intended to create an adequate remedy to enforce that right. Opposed to this is the maxim 

Expressio unius exclusio alterius est, suggesting that if the legislation called 

for a criminal penalty the civil liability must have intentionally been omitted, or if one section calls for civil liability and another does not it must have 

been intended that there would be no civil liability under the second section.”

(Emphasis added.) 
368 Doyle v. City of Medford

We also reject plaintiffs’ understanding of the scope 

of our decision in Doyle II. The precise issue before us here 

was not before the court in Doyle II. That case arose from a 

question certified to this court by the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals. The question there was: “What amount of discretion does [ORS] 243.303 confer on local governments to 

determine whether or not to provide health insurance coverage to their employees after retirement?” Doyle II, 347 Or 

at 566. In answering that question, we were not called on 

to determine whether the legislature impliedly created a 

right of action to enforce the obligation that ORS 243.303(2) 

imposes on local governments, and plaintiffs’ argument 

that the court nevertheless decided that issue in Doyle II is 

unpersuasive.

In short, we conclude that neither the text, context, nor legislative history of ORS 243.303 indicate that 

the legislature expressly or impliedly intended to create a 

private right of action to remedy a violation of the duty that 

the statute imposes on local governments. That is not the 

end of the inquiry, however. The question remains whether 

creation of the common-law right of action that plaintiffs 

advance would be consistent with the legislative purpose, 

appropriate for promoting its policy, and needed to ensure 

its effectiveness. Bob Godfrey Pontiac, Inc., 291 Or at 330; 

Restatement § 874A comment h.

As we explained in Doyle II, the purpose underlying 

ORS 243.303(2) is to require local governments, insofar as 

and to the extent possible, to provide the same health insurance coverage to retirees that is made available to their 

officers and current employees. Doyle II, 347 Or at 579. The 

circuit court in this case concluded that “[a] private right 

of action is necessary to effectuate the legislature’s intent.” 

However, as discussed, the court did not elaborate on the 

nature of the right of action that it provided; in particular, although plaintiffs asserted a tort theory, the court did 

not describe the right of action that it provided in conventional tort terms. In particular, the court did not determine 

that, by violating the statute, the city had breached a standard of conduct sounding in tort. Nevertheless, the circuit 

court instructed the jury that it could award both economic 
Cite as 356 Or 336 (2014) 369

damages (consisting of amounts that plaintiffs had paid outof-pocket for substitute health insurance coverage), as well 

as noneconomic damages for any “emotional distress that 

the plaintiff[s] ha[ve] sustained from the time [they were] 

injured until the present and that the plaintiff[s] probably 

will sustain in the future.” The court further instructed the 

jury that, in considering noneconomic damages, it could take 

into account “[a]ny inconvenience and interference with the 

plaintiff[s’] normal and usual activities” past and future 

and “any other subjective non-monetary losses.”

Having been so instructed, the jury awarded economic damages and noneconomic damages to both plaintiffs. The ultimate question before us is whether creation 

of a common-law right of action based on a claim for relief 

sounding in tort that includes the remedies of economic 

and noneconomic damages would be consistent with the 

purpose underlying ORS 243.303(2), appropriate for promoting its policy, and needed to ensure its effectiveness. To 

make that determination, we consider the factors set out in 

Restatement § 874A comment h.

A. The Nature of the Statutory Duty

The first factor set out in comment h asks a question:

“Does [the statute] clearly let both the court and the actor 

know in advance what conduct is prohibited? Or is it posed 

in broad, general terms that will acquire specific meaning 

only if—and after—the court has determined to supply the 

tort remedy and expressed it for the benefit of the persons 

being affected?”

That question has important implications in this case.

On the one hand, the city’s duty under ORS 

243.303(2) is specific: The city shall provide health insurance to retirees on the same basis as provided to current 

employees. That is, the legislature’s use of the word “shall” 

suggests that a strict liability standard of conduct might 

apply to a violation of the statute. On the other hand, however, the “insofar as and to the extent possible” clause modifies the statutory duty in a way that gives a local government 

a measure of flexibility and makes the applicable standard 

of conduct less certain.
370 Doyle v. City of Medford

As discussed, plaintiffs have not asserted that the 

city violated any tort standard of conduct. The issue, however, is whether that failure breached the city’s statutory 

duty to plaintiffs.

In that statutory setting, plaintiffs’ theory of liability bears close scrutiny. Although plaintiffs ask us to 

create a right of action that sounds in tort, they have not 

identified any existing tort claim that comports with their 

pleaded theory. For this court to create one, it would be necessary to pick among various elements that plaintiffs have 

not taken the trouble to identify. For example, if the proper 

theory is one of strict liability, plaintiffs have not explained 

how the statutory qualification of the city’s duty comports 

with such a standard.16 And, although plaintiffs alleged 

that the city intentionally failed to provide them with 

health insurance coverage, they have not asserted that, by 

doing so, the city intentionally breached its statutory duty. 

Neither have plaintiffs asserted negligence or other tort 

theories of relief, perhaps in recognition that those theories 

also do not fit the facts of this case. Whatever the reason 

for the omission, the statutory duty here would acquire a 

more specific (and, perhaps, unintended) meaning if this 

court were to adapt it to a tort theory that, among other 

elements, necessarily would include an associated mental 

state. Where, as here, the question is whether creation of a 

common-law right of action is both appropriate and necessary to effectuate the purpose of a statute, we are reluctant 

to supply elements of a common-law claim for relief that 

plaintiffs have failed to identify and whose creation could 

affect the nature of the statutory duty. See, e.g., Burnette, 

284 Or at 712 (“If there is any chance that invasion into the 

field by the court’s establishment of a civil cause of action 

16 There is the additional concern as to what damages would be recoverable 

in a judicially created strict liability claim. As discussed below, at most, plaintiffs 

would be entitled to recover economic damages in any common-law tort claim. 

However, plaintiffs have not cited any authority for the proposition that a strict 

liability claim would support the recovery of the economic damages that they 

seek here. In the context of strict products liability claims, this court has held 

that personal injury to person or physical damage to property is required. Brown 

v. Western Farmers Assoc., 268 Or 470, 478, 521 P2d 537 (1974); see also ORS 

30.900 (defining “product liability civil action” as a civil action brought “for damages for personal injury, death, or property damage.”).
Cite as 356 Or 336 (2014) 371

might interfere with the total legislative scheme, courts 

should err on the side of non-intrusion because it is always 

possible for the legislature to establish such a civil cause of 

action if it desires.”).

B. The Adequacy of Existing Claims and Associated Remedies

Plaintiffs remonstrate that, unless a tort claim is 

provided, there will be no effective means to enforce the city’s 

statutory duty. We disagree. Although no right of action is 

provided in the statute itself, the question remains

“[w]hat other remedies are available in the court’s repertoire and how effective will they be? Will a declaratory 

judgment or the granting of an injunction prove better than 

the damage remedy because it is easier to administer or 

more effective? Do several remedies need to be available to 

the plaintiff either at his election or at the determination of 

the court in light of the particular facts?

Restatement § 874A comment h. As we now explain, we conclude that an existing claim for relief and associated remedies are sufficient to effectuate the legislature’s purpose in 

enacting ORS 243.303(2).

ORS 28.010 provides:

“Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights, status, and other 

legal relations, whether or not further relief is or could be 

claimed. No action or proceeding shall be open to objection 

on the ground that a declaratory judgment is prayed for. 

The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in 

form and effect, and such declarations shall have the force 

and effect of a judgment.”

ORS 28.020 further provides:

“Any person interested under a deed, will, written contract or other writing constituting a contract, or whose 

rights, status or other legal relations are affected by a constitution, statute, municipal charter, ordinance, contract or 

franchise may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under any such instrument, constitution, statute, municipal charter, ordinance, contract or 

franchise and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other 

legal relations thereunder.”
372 Doyle v. City of Medford

Finally, ORS 28.080 provides:

“Further relief based on a declaratory judgment may 

be granted whenever necessary or proper. The application 

thereof shall be by petition to a court having jurisdiction 

to grant the relief. If the application be deemed sufficient, 

the court shall, on reasonable notice, require any adverse 

party whose rights have been adjudicated by the declaratory judgment to show cause why further relief should not 

be granted forthwith.”

To establish a justiciable controversy under those 

statutes based on asserted statutory rights, a plaintiff must 

show that his or her “rights, status, or other legal relations” 

are “affected by” the relevant statute. Morgan v. Sisters 

School Dist. # 6, 353 Or 189, 195-96, 301 P3d 419 (2013). 

That requirement implicates three related but separate considerations. Id. The first consideration is that there must be 

“some injury or other impact upon a legally recognized interest beyond an abstract interest in the correct application 

or the validity of a law.” League of Oregon Cities v. State of 

Oregon, 334 Or 645, 658, 56 P3d 892 (2002). Plaintiffs here 

satisfy that requirement: They are members of the class of 

persons to whom the duty imposed by ORS 243.303(2) is 

owed, and they claim injuries based on the city’s asserted 

violation of that duty. The second consideration is that the 

injury must be real or probable, not hypothetical or speculative. TVKO v. Howland, 335 Or 527, 534, 73 P3d 905 (2003). 

Plaintiffs also satisfy that requirement: There is a present 

and actual dispute between the parties about the existence 

and scope of plaintiffs’ rights and the city’s obligations 

under the statute. The third and final consideration is that 

the court’s decision must have a practical effect on the rights 

that the plaintiff is seeking to vindicate. Kellas v. Dept. of 

Corrections, 341 Or 471, 484-85, 145 P3d 139 (2006). Again, 

that requirement is satisfied. A judgment to the effect that 

plaintiffs are entitled to health insurance benefits under 

the statute would afford plaintiffs a judicial declaration 

of rights that, at least prospectively, would vindicate their 

rights under ORS 243.303(2).

Because plaintiffs satisfy the justiciability requirements for a declaratory judgment adjudicating their rights 

under ORS 243.303(2), they need not plead or prove what 
Cite as 356 Or 336 (2014) 373

would amount to a claim for relief apart from establishing 

their rights under that statute. See, e.g., Lewis v. Miller, 197 

Or 354, 358-59, 251 P2d 876 (1952) (claim for declaratory 

relief is legally sufficient if it alleges facts showing the existence of a justiciable controversy); Central Or. Irr. Dist. v. 

Deschutes Co., 168 Or 493, 507, 124 P2d 518 (1942) (same); 

Walter H. Anderson, Declaratory Judgments 588-89 (1951) 

(to state a claim for declaratory judgment with respect to 

statutory rights, “the plaintiff’s pleading need not state what 

would amount to a cause of action apart from the statute”).

In addition, plaintiffs have a right to seek supplemental relief under ORS 28.080 for any cognizable damages 

that resulted from a violation of ORS 243.303(2), such as 

economic damages for the cost of obtaining substitute health 

insurance. See Morgan, 353 Or at 200 (supplemental relief 

under the Declaratory Judgments Act includes an assessment of damages); Ken Leahy Construction, Inc. v. Cascade 

General, Inc., 329 Or 566, 573-74, 994 P2d 112 (1999) (same); 

Lowe v. Harmon, 167 Or 128, 136, 115 P2d 297 (1941) (same).

Finally, although it is true that the decision whether 

to grant declaratory relief sometimes has been described as 

“discretionary,” courts are justified in refusing such relief 

only where “more effective relief can and should be obtained 

by another procedure and *** for that reason a declaration will not serve a useful purpose.” Edwin Borchard, 

Declaratory Judgments 302-03 (2d ed 1941) (footnotes omitted; emphasis in original) (cited with approval in Brooks v. 

Dierker, 275 Or 619, 624, 552 P2d 533 (1976)). That is not the 

circumstance here, where the city’s position is that plaintiffs 

have no right of action at all. In short, a claim for declaratory 

judgment would provide plaintiffs with both a declaration of 

their rights under ORS 243.303(2) and, if they prevail, the 

right to recover cognizable damages for past violations of 

the city’s statutory duty.17 Because declaratory relief would 

17 In concluding that declaratory relief is available to determine the statutory 

rights that plaintiffs seek to vindicate, we note that this is not a case in which a 

special statutory proceeding has been provided. See Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 

US 294, 296, 85 S Ct 377, 13 L Ed 290 (1964) (noting that ordinarily declaratory 

relief should not be granted in that situation). Nor is it a case in which the legislature has given an agency primary or exclusive authority to enforce a statute 

or a regulation. See Public Service Commission v. Wycoff Co., 344 US 237, 73 S 
374 Doyle v. City of Medford

be effective to redress the injuries that plaintiffs assert, the 

adequacy of such relief disfavors the provision of an additional common-law claim for relief sounding in tort.

C. The Extent to Which the Action Will Aid or Supplement or 

Interfere With Existing Claims and Associated Remedies 

and Other Means of Enforcement

Plaintiffs plausibly assert that judicial provision 

of an additional private right of action in this case would 

not interfere with any other vehicle for enforcement of the 

city’s duty under ORS 243.303(2). In particular, enforcement of the statute is not delegated to an administrative 

body authorized to investigate, correct, or adjudicate claims 

of noncompliance. Cf. Restatement § 874A comment h (“If 

application of the legislation has been placed in the hands of 

an administrative agency, for example, this may have been 

done with the intent that the agency exercise a discretionary enforcement or treat the matter from an administrative 

standpoint.”). Although the city suggests that enforcement 

of its statutory duty is better left to collective bargaining 

or federal law, those arguments are unconvincing. ORS 

243.303(2) imposes a duty under Oregon law that its courts 

are, when their authority is properly invoked, equipped to 

vindicate. The ultimate question is what claims for relief 

and accompanying remedies are appropriate and needed 

to enforce that duty. Thus, this factor marginally favors 

plaintiffs, but does not furnish an answer to that ultimate 

question.

D. The Significance of the Purpose the Legislative Body is 

Seeking to Effectuate

To a certain extent, as applied here, this factor 

begs a larger question: Whether the statutory purpose is so 

important, as a matter of public policy, that the legislature 

would have provided an additional right of action if it had 

considered the matter. Needless to say, the statutory duty 

Ct 236, 242, 97 L Ed 291 (1952) (explaining that declaratory relief should not be 

used to “pre-empt and prejudge issues that are committed for initial decision to 

an administrative body”). Our recognition that declaratory relief is available to 

determine the existence (or nonexistence) of the statutory rights that plaintiffs 

press here should not be understood as a general authorization to disregard the 

limits that inhere in other statutory schemes.
Cite as 356 Or 336 (2014) 375

to provide health insurance benefits to retirees is important. However, as noted, that purpose is not unfettered. It 

is limited to an extent by the flexibility that the legislature 

provided to local governments based on the “insofar as and 

to the extent possible” phrase in the statute. On balance, 

it is difficult to determine—based on the “significance”

factor—whether creation of an additional common-law right 

of action, as opposed to declaratory relief, is necessary or 

appropriate to effectuate the legislature’s purpose.

E. The Extent of the Change in Law

This factor poses the questions of “[h]ow drastic 

is the change from established law?” and “[h]ow near is 

the factual situation before the court to an existing tort?” 

Restatement § 874A comment h. In this case, the answer to 

that question is clear and its implications are significant. 

Plaintiffs ask us to create a tort right of action that provides them with emotional distress damages. However, in 

the absence of the infliction of physical injury, this court 

has permitted tort recovery for psychic injury in three situations. Hammond v. Central Lane Communications Center, 

312 Or 17, 22-23, 816 P2d 593 (1991). The first is where the 

defendant intended to inflict severe emotional distress. See 

Brewer v. Erwin, 287 Or 435, 454-58, 600 P2d 398 (1979) 

(evidence sufficient to go to jury on theory that defendant 

engaged in abusive conduct intended to frighten or distress 

plaintiff); Turman v. Central Billing Bureau, 279 Or 443, 

445-49, 568 P2d 1382 (1977) (evidence of extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient). The second is where the defendant 

intended to commit an injury-inflicting act with knowledge

that it would cause severe distress, and the defendant’s relationship to the plaintiff involves some responsibility aside 

from the tort itself. Hall v. The May Dept. Stores Co., 292 

Or 131, 135-37, 637 P2d 126 (1981) (evidence sufficient to 

support verdict for employee against employer under theory of intentional infliction of emotional distress). Finally, 

the third arises where the defendant’s negligent conduct 

infringed on some legally protected interest of the plaintiff 

apart from causing the claimed psychic injury. See Nearing, 

295 Or at 706 (1983) (recognizing that Oregon law allows 

recovery of damages for psychic harm when defendant’s 
376 Doyle v. City of Medford

conduct infringes some legal right of plaintiff independent of 

an ordinary tort claim for negligence); McEvoy v. Helikson, 

277 Or 781, 562 P2d 540 (1977) (negligent delivery of passport, in violation of a court order, resulting in removal of 

plaintiff’s child).

Here, as noted, plaintiffs did not allege that the 

city negligently violated the statute or, for that matter, that 

it acted with any other culpable mental state. And, importantly, plaintiffs have not alleged any physical injury that 

accompanied their asserted psychic injuries. Accordingly, 

plaintiffs have failed to satisfy any exception to the general 

rule that tort damages for psychic injury in the absence of 

physical injury are not recoverable. In that circumstance, 

judicial creation of a right of action based on a tort claim 

permitting the recovery of such damages would constitute 

a significant departure from current law in this state. We 

discern no basis for concluding that the creation of such a 

remedy would be appropriate or necessary to effectuate the 

legislative purpose underlying ORS 243.303(2); accordingly, 

we decline to do so.

Of course, noneconomic damages are a type of remedy, not a claim for relief. Therefore, this court could create a tort claim that would permit the recovery of economic 

damages alone if it were appropriate and necessary to do 

so. However, as explained, declaratory relief is adequate to 

redress plaintiffs’ economic losses, and it also provides them 

with an important declaration of rights that a tort recovery would not. Accordingly, we conclude that creating a tort 

claim that would include economic damages alone—the only 

cognizable damage remedy that plaintiffs seek—also would 

not be necessary to effectuate the purpose of the legislature 

in enacting ORS 243.303(2).

F. The Burden That the New Claim Will Place on the 

Judicial Machinery

Although the city suggests that creation of a 

common-law right of action to enforce ORS 243.303(2) would 

place a significant burden on the courts, it is not obvious 

why that would be so, and we decline to give weight to that 

factor here.
Cite as 356 Or 336 (2014) 377

G. Balancing of Factors

On balance, we conclude that the pertinent factors 

weigh against this court’s creation of a common-law right of 

action sounding in tort to enforce the city’s duty under ORS 

243.303(2). The most significant factors, as applied here, are: 

(1) plaintiffs have failed to identify a cognizable common-law 

claim for relief whose creation is appropriate and necessary 

to effectuate the legislature’s purpose; (2) a declaratory judgment and supplemental relief are adequate to enforce the 

statutory duty; and (3) a significant change in existing law 

would result from judicial creation of a tort claim permitting 

the recovery of noneconomic damages in the circumstances 

here, and there is no other need to create a common-law tort 

claim where, as here, a declaratory judgment and supplemental relief would fully redress plaintiffs’ compensable injuries, 

if any. In contrast to those considerations, the other factors 

do not carry overriding weight in the balance.18 Accordingly, 

we decline to create an additional common-law right of action 

for the violation of ORS 243.303(2).

We turn briefly to the concurrence, which has done 

a commendable job of advocating for the creation of a private tort right of action in these circumstances. As we see 

things, our most important differences of opinion involve

(1) the import of the holdings in Nearing and Chartrand; 

and (2) the extent to which the court should be willing to 

fashion a new common-law right of action for violation of a 

statutory duty where there is no indication that the legislature itself intended to create a right of action.

First, it appears that the concurrence concludes 

that Nearing and Chartrand involved the creation by this 

court of a common-law right of action to enforce a statutory 

duty. In particular reference to those cases, the concurrence 

writes:

“Similarly, in this case, if this court were to recognize that 

plaintiffs have a tort claim for violation of ORS 243.303(2), 

18 We do not suggest that comment h sets out an exclusive list of relevant considerations for determining whether judicial creation of a private right of action 

is appropriate or necessary to enforce a statutory duty. However, the parties have 

advanced no other relevant factors in this case. Accordingly, we leave the matter 

for further development.
378 Doyle v. City of Medford

plaintiffs’ claim should be viewed not as a claim for negligence, nor as a claim that the city acted ‘willfully or intentionally or with some other state of mind.’ Instead, plaintiffs’ claim is a claim that the city violated the statute and 

that plaintiffs suffered damages as a result.”

Doyle v. City of Medford, 356 Or 336, __, __P3d __ (2014) 

(Walters, J. concurring).

We do not share that understanding of Nearing

and Chartrand. Rather than involving judicially-created 

rights of action, those cases involved implied statutory liability claims; that is, the court concluded that the legislature itself had intended to provide a remedy for a statutory 

violation.

The court explained it this way in Bellikka:

“Statutory law may be important in several ways. This 

court has recognized that there are instances where 

the legislature has, in effect, created a tort. See, e.g., 

Chartrand v. Coos Bay Tavern, 298 Or 689, 696 P2d 513 

(1985). Such statutory torts exist independent of any parallel common-law claim and can be pleaded independently, 

with or without an accompanying common-law claim. 

Holien v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 298 Or 76, 689 P2d 1292 

(1984); Nearing v. Weaver, supra, 295 Or at 707, 670 P.2d 

137.”

306 Or at 650. Similarly, in Gattman v. Favro, 306 Or 11, 15, 

757 P2d 402 (1988) the court stated:

“The question in a statutory tort context (as it was in 

Nearing ** *) is whether the plaintiff has ‘pleaded an 

infringement by [the defendant] of a legal right arising 

independent of the ordinary tort elements of a negligence 

action.’ Nearing 295 Or at 707. One significant difference 

between a statutory tort remedy and a common-law right 

of action is that if a statutory tort is created, foreseeability 

may be immaterial or has been determined by the legislature. See Chartrand ***, discussed below. (‘The plaintiff 

[on remand] could and may after proper amendments claim 

damages on a theory of tort law unfettered by negligence 

concepts of foreseeability.’)”

See also Solberg v. Johnson, 306 Or 484, 488, 760 P2d 867 

(1988) (citing Gattman and characterizing Nearing as a 
Cite as 356 Or 336 (2014) 379

“statutory tort” case).19 And, in Shahtout v. Emco Garbage 

Co., 298 Or 598, 600-601, 695 P2d 897 (1985), the court cited 

Nearing for the proposition that:

“A law that is designed to protect some or all persons against a particular risk of harm may expressly or 

impliedly give persons within the protected class a right to 

recover damages if noncompliance with the law results in 

harm of the kind the law seeks to prevent.”

In Cain, a case where this court did create a 

common-law cause of action, the court distinguished Nearing:

“Common law principles of reasonable care and foreseeability of harm are relevant because this case does not fall 

within a mandated statutory duty such as that described 

in Nearing ** *. In Nearing, we held that common law 

concepts of negligence were irrelevant when police had a 

specific duty under ORS 133.310(3) to take a person who 

violated a court order into custody, and that violation of 

that duty could give rise to a civil action in tort. The statute mandated that police arrest a person if the person violated a court order. We contrasted the use of ‘shall’ in ORS 

133.310(3) with the use of ‘may’ in the previous subsections, stating that ‘shall’ created a mandatory duty, while 

‘may’ created only authority to act. 295 Or at 709, 670, 137. 

Because ORS 161.336(6) states only that Providence may

take a person into custody, the statute does not create a 

Nearing v. Weaver statutory tort.”

300 Or at 717-18 (emphasis in original).

19 As Professor Forell explained, in referring to Chartrand:

“[T]he Oregon Supreme Court recognized that the legislature intended to 

create a tort action but did not expressly say so; therefore, this is a legislatively created statutory tort, not a court-provided statutory duty action.”

Forell, 77 Or Rev at 508. Likewise, in Nearing,

“[The] court concluded that the legislature intended to create a tort 

action for people in Nearing’s situation and that neither unreasonable conduct nor foreseeability had to be proved. So long as it is determined that the 

statute has been violated, liability is to be imposed. As the Nearing court 

noted: ‘Here, the risk, the harm, and the potential plaintiff were all foreseen 

by the lawmaker.’ [Nearing, 295 Or at 708-09].

“The decisions in Nearing and Chartrand indicate that, when a focused 

statute expressly refers to civil liability in some manner and the statute or 

statutory scheme provides no civil or criminal remedy, the Oregon Supreme 

Court will recognize that the legislature, by implication, intended to create a 

statutory tort action.”

Forell, 77 Or L Rev at 511-12.
380 Doyle v. City of Medford

Which brings us to our caution about the circumstances under which the court should create a new 

common-law right of action for the violation of a statutory duty where there is no indication that the legislature intended to create a right of action. In such 

circumstances,

“[t]he action is in furtherance of the purpose of the legislation and is stimulated by it, but what is involved is judicial rather than legislative modification of the existing law. 

The court is not required to provide the civil remedy, and 

yet judicial tradition gives it the authority to do this under 

appropriate circumstances. The court has discretion and it 

must be careful to exercise that discretion cautiously and 

soundly.”

Restatement § 874A, comment d. There is good reason for such 

caution. This case illustrates why that is so. To begin with, 

plaintiffs have not identified any particular common-law 

tort on which they rely. The concurrence asserts that,” [i]f 

plaintiffs could identify such a tort, they would not need to 

ask this court for assistance.” Doyle, 356 Or at __ (Walters, J.

concurring). However, plaintiffs were required to plead and 

prove the elements of a cognizable common-law tort claim, 

so that a court responsible for ascertaining the legal sufficiency of their theory of recovery can make that determination. See ORCP 18 A (pleading that asserts a claim for 

relief shall contain “[a] plain and concise statement of the 

ultimate facts constituting a claim for relief without unnecessary repetition”).

To the extent that the concurrence asserts that 

plaintiffs were not required to identify a common-law tort 

because the alleged violation of the terms of the statute at 

issue in this case, without more, constituted such a tort, we 

respectfully disagree. When a court decides that a violation 

of the terms of a statute amounts to a common-law tort and 

provides damages as a remedy, it is difficult to conceive of 

that decision as anything other than the court doing what 

the legislature itself could have done if it had so intended, 

but failed to do. For the judiciary to assume that role comes 

close to occupying the status of an auxiliary legislative 

body, which, of course, we must take care not to do. See, e.g.,

Burnette, 284 Or at 712 (“Courts should exercise restraint in 
Cite as 356 Or 336 (2014) 381

fields in which the legislature has attempted fairly comprehensive social regulation.”).

Instead, a court’s creation of a common-law right of 

action to effectuate the purpose of a statute ordinarily will 

consist of adapting or assimilating an existing tort to the 

contours of the statutory duty. In that vein, the Restatement

contemplates that a judicially-created tort right of action 

will have substantive elements that are drawn from conventional tort principles:

“Whether the tort action provided by the court in furtherance of the policy of a legislative provision is to be treated 

as an intentional tort, as negligence or a form of strict liability, or perhaps as involving all three (as in some existing 

torts such as misrepresentation), depends primarily upon 

construction of the statute itself. It also depends upon the 

nature of the established tort to which it is found to be most 

closely analogous and which is therefore expanded to cover 

it.”

Restatement § 874A, comment j.20

Consistently with that premise, to date, this court 

has not created a common-law tort right of action that 

merely tracked the terms of a statute. Instead, this court 

in Cain adapted an existing common-law right of action—

negligence—to effectuate the statutory duty that the court 

identified. The court first concluded that Providence had a 

duty to the plaintiff’s decedent that arose from the statutes 

governing community mental health, rather than from a 

general common-law duty of due care. Cain, 300 Or at 717. 

The court then turned to “common law principles of reasonable care and foreseeability of harm,” because the statute 

at issue was a permissive one. The court gave substance to 

that duty of reasonable care by referring to two statutes:

“Although Providence did not have custody over Rijken, 

under the statute it could take him into custody or request 

20 Understandably, plaintiffs did not plead that the city either negligently 

or intentionally violated its statutory duty. To do so would have added proof 

requirements that the legislature did not impose. Nor, as discussed, in light of the 

statutory condition that providing insurance coverage to retirees be “reasonably 

possible,” have plaintiffs asserted that a strict tort liability theory of recovery 

comports with the terms of the statute.
382 Doyle v. City of Medford

that he be taken into custody if Rijken was ‘a substantial danger to others because of mental disease or 

defect and [Rijken was] in need of immediate care, custody or treatment.’ ORS 161.336(6). The statute authorized Providence to exercise control over Rijken. ORS 

161.336(10) provides:

“‘In determining whether a person should be committed to a state hospital, conditionally released or discharged, 

[PSRB] shall have as its primary concern the protection of 

society.’

“This duty to protect the public does not evaporate once 

PSRB conditionally releases a person to a community mental health provider. ORS 161.336(6), read with subsection 

(10), authorizes mental health providers to take patients 

into custody to protect members of the public, which 

included the plaintiff’s decedent.”

Id. at 718 (alterations in original). Having concluded that 

the statutes both imposed a duty and informed the standard 

of care, the court explained that the question then became 

“whether Providence reasonably should have foreseen that 

those acts posed a risk of the kind of harm to a person such 

as Cain, i.e., to someone using the streets, that occurred 

here.” Id. The court ultimately concluded that it could not 

determine, as a matter of law, that the harm Cain suffered 

was the reasonably foreseeable result of Providence’s failure 

to take Rijken into custody. Id. at 720.

In sum, the right of action that the court created in 

Cain was grounded both in the statutes that created the duty 

Providence breached and in the common law of negligence. 

That approach is consistent with the Restatement, which 

states at section 874 A, comment f, that a judicially created 

common-law right of action “will ordinarily be assimilated 

to the most similar common law tort.” Although courts can 

modify the elements of a common-law tort or even create a 

new common-law claim with its own features, id., the issue 

is whether to do so would be consistent with the legislative 

provision, appropriate for promoting its policy and needed to 

effectuate the legislative purpose. See Restatement § 874 A, 

comment h. As we have explained above, we conclude that 

there is no basis or need to do so here.
Cite as 356 Or 336 (2014) 383

IV. CONCLUSION

To summarize: We conclude that (1) the legislature neither expressly nor impliedly intended to create (or 

not to create) a private right of action for the violation of 

ORS 243.303(2); (2) the circuit court therefore correctly 

considered whether, nevertheless, it should provide a private right of action, based on the considerations described 

in this court’s decisions in Cain, Bob Godfrey Pontiac, Inc., 

Miller, and Burnette, and Restatement § 874A, to effectuate 

the legislative purpose underlying ORS 243.303(2); and

(3) for the reasons explained above, judicial creation of the 

tort-based right of action that plaintiffs assert in this case 

is not appropriate for promoting the policy of the statute or 

needed to ensure its effectiveness. However, we also conclude that plaintiffs have a claim for a determination of the 

parties’ rights and duties under the statute that is actionable under the Declaratory Judgments Act.

Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of 

Appeals and remand to that court for a determination of the 

other issues that that court did not reach, including whether 

plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on the ground 

that the city violated ORS 243.303 as evaluated under ORS 

Chapter 28.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. 

The case is remanded to that court for further proceedings.

WALTERS, J., concurring.

ORS 243.303(2) requires defendant to make available to its retirees, such as plaintiffs, the same health insurance coverage that it makes available to its current employees. I agree with the court that plaintiffs have a right to 

bring a claim for damages against defendant for its failure 

to fulfill that statutory duty. Doyle v. City of Medford, 356 

Or 336, ___, ___ P3d ___ (2014). I disagree, however, with 

the court’s conclusion that plaintiffs’ claim should be analyzed and adjudicated as a claim under the Declaratory 

Judgments Act. In my view, this court instead should recognize, in accordance with its prior case law and Restatement

(Second) of Torts § 874A comment h (1979), that plaintiffs 
384 Doyle v. City of Medford

have a tort claim for damages and analyze and adjudicate 

plaintiffs’ claim as such.

In analyzing and adjudicating a tort claim for damages, a court may be called on to decide the elements of the 

claim, the applicable defenses, and the cognizable damages. 

Courts have considered those questions for decades, if not 

eons, and have used myriad tort principles to decide them. 

In contrast, although the Declaratory Judgments Act provides remedies for statutory violations and permits a court 

that grants declaratory relief to grant supplemental relief, 

including monetary damages, a claim under the Declaratory 

Judgments Act is not a tort claim governed by tort principles. 

Thus, when proceeding under the Declaratory Judgments 

Act, a court that must decide the elements of a plaintiff’s 

claim, the applicable defenses, and the cognizable damages 

does not have the guidance that tort principles provide. In 

this case, I do not see a good reason to conclude that plaintiffs’ claim seeking monetary damages for a violation of ORS 

243.303(2) must be analyzed and adjudicated under the 

Declaratory Judgments Act rather than as a tort claim.

One of the principal reasons that the court abjures 

a tort claim in this case is that it is unwilling to decide what 

“mental state” the tort would require. 356 Or at ___. The 

court ponders whether a tort claim for a violation of ORS 

243.303(2) would be a claim for “strict liability” or “negligence” and whether a plaintiff would be required to prove 

that the defendant acted intentionally or unreasonably. Id.

at ___. Those are important questions, but it is unclear why 

the court decides that they weigh against the creation of a 

tort. Those questions remain; the court cannot avoid them by 

classifying plaintiffs’ claim as a claim under the Declaratory 

Judgments Act. A court adjudicating plaintiffs’ claim under 

the Declaratory Judgments Act will be required to decide 

whether the city violated ORS 243.303(2) when it declined 

to make health care coverage available to plaintiffs. If resolution of that question requires an analysis of the city’s mental state, then that analysis is required whether the claim 

sounds in tort or as a claim for declaratory judgment.

Moreover, the questions that the court raises about 

the elements of a claim for a violation of ORS 243.303(2), 
Cite as 356 Or 336 (2014) 385

including the requisite “mental state,” are readily answered 

by this court’s tort law jurisprudence. In cases in which the 

court has considered the elements of torts claims for violating statutorily imposed duties, the court has looked for 

instruction to the statute imposing the duty.

For example, in Nearing v. Weaver, 295 Or 702, 670 

P2d 137 (1983), the plaintiffs alleged that the husband violated a restraining order, that the wife reported that violation to the defendant, who was a police officer, and that the 

defendant refused to arrest the husband in breach of a statutory requirement. Id. at 704-06. The court acknowledged 

that the plaintiffs had not alleged a violation of “an ordinary 

common law duty of due care to avoid predictable harm to 

another.” Id. at 707. Rather, the plaintiffs had alleged the 

violation of “a specific duty imposed by statute for the benefit of individuals previously identified by a judicial order.” 

Id. The court held that the plaintiffs’ complaint was sufficient to plead “an infringement by [the] defendants of a legal 

right arising independently of the ordinary tort elements of 

a negligence action.” Id. The court went on to explain that, 

although the plaintiffs had described their claim to the trial 

court as a claim for the negligent performance of duty, they 

had not used that label in their complaint, nor were they 

required to do so: The duty, the court explained, “arises 

from the statute coupled with the court order.” Id. at 708

The plaintiffs’ reference to negligence was “immaterial” to 

the defendants’ liability, “because the result would not be 

different if defendants had acted, or failed to act, willfully 

or intentionally or with some other state of mind.” Id. In an 

actionable claim for breach of a statutory duty, the plaintiff need prove only the statutory duty and its violation; the 

plaintiff need not prove that the defendant failed to take 

reasonable care or that the harm that occurred was foreseeable. Id. at 708-09.1

The court adhered to that reasoning in Chartrand 

v. Coos Bay Tavern, 298 Or 689, 696 P2d 513 (1985), when 

1 That does not mean, however, that such claims are claims of “strict” liability. The court explained in Nearing that the fact that a statute that imposes a 

mandatory obligation does “not mean that the obligation creates absolute liability for resulting harm.” Nearing, 295 Or at 709. That is because various defenses 

may be available.
386 Doyle v. City of Medford

it recognized that the plaintiff could proceed on both a 

common-law negligence theory and on a theory that the defendant had violated a statute prohibiting service of alcoholic 

beverages to a visibly intoxicated patron. The court explained:

“Thus, a plaintiff protected by such a statute need not 

resort to any concepts of negligence. Negligence is irrelevant. The sole question is whether the defendant engaged 

in acts prohibited by the statute and whether the violation 

of the statute resulted in injury.”

Id. at 696; see also Davis v. Campbell, 327 Or 584, 592, 965 

P2d 1017 (1998) (holding that the common-law standard 

for negligence “says nothing about whether the legislature 

intended that legal standard to apply to a statutory claim 

under the RLTA”) (citation omitted); Gattman v. Favro, 306 

Or 11, 15, 757 P2d 402 (1988) (“[I]f a statutory tort is created, foreseeability may be immaterial or has been determined by the legislature.”).

Similarly, in this case, if this court were to recognize that plaintiffs have a tort claim for violation of ORS 

243.303(2), then plaintiffs’ claim should be viewed not as 

a claim for negligence, nor as a claim that the city acted 

“willfully or intentionally or with some other state of mind.” 

Instead, plaintiffs’ claim is a claim that the city violated 

the statute and that plaintiffs suffered damages as a result. 

Because plaintiffs pleaded those necessary facts, their 

pleading is sufficient.

The court takes a different view and discounts 

Nearing and Chartrand, because, in those cases, the court 

did not create a tort claim. Instead, the court implied a legislative intent to create tort claims from the terms of the 

applicable statutes. 2 But whether a court creates or implies 

2 The court emphasizes that, in Nearing, the claim that the court recognized 

was implied from the statute’s text and context. 356 Or at ___. However, Nearing 

includes no discussion of whether the legislature intended to create a statutory 

claim. Instead, the court explained its result by stating that it had, in the past, 

recognized “‘common law liability for psychic injury alone when defendant’s 

conduct *** infringed some legally protected interest apart from causing the 

claimed distress, even when only negligently.’” Nearing, 295 Or at 706 (emphasis added; quoting Norwest, By & Through Crain v. Presbyterian Intercommunity 

Hosp., 293 Or 543, 558-59, 652 P2d 318 (1982)). The court then decided that 

similar liability should be extended in the case at hand because the legislature 

had imposed “a specific duty” for the benefit of a class of individuals that includes 
Cite as 356 Or 336 (2014) 387

a tort claim does not determine the elements of such claim. 

Whether the legislature or the court is the source of the tort 

remedy, it is the statute, and the legislature that enacts it, 

that imposes the applicable duty. And it is that duty that 

a court looks to in defining the elements of the tort claim. 

Whether the legislature or the court creates or recognizes a 

tort remedy, the statutory obligation is the same and there 

is no reason that the elements of the claim should depend 

on the source of the remedy.3

 Said another way, if this court 

had implied from the terms of ORS 243.303(2) a legislative 

intent to permit a tort claim for damages, the court would 

have had no difficulty defining the elements of such a claim. 

It would have required plaintiffs to allege and prove that 

“defendant engaged in acts prohibited by the statute” and 

that they suffered injury as a result.4

 The result should be 

plaintiffs. 295 Or at 707. What is important to me is not whether this court is 

correct in describing the source of the claim that the court recognized in Nearing, 

but how the court in Nearing determined the elements of that claim—by looking 

to the statute that imposed the duty. Similarly, in Scovill By & Through Hubbard 

v. City of Astoria, 324 Or 159, 921 P2d 1312 (1996), the source of the tort claim 

was immaterial in deciding the elements of the claim. The court concluded both 

that the legislature intended a tort remedy and that the court would create one; 

the source of the claim did not determine its elements. Id. at 166-67.

3 When the legislature creates a statutory duty without expressly providing 

a remedy, a court nevertheless may allow a tort claim by (1) implying a claim 

from the statute’s text, context, and legislative history or (2) concluding that a 

claim is necessary, appropriate, and consistent with the statute. The two means 

of arriving at the end are not so different. When a court creates a tort claim, it 

does judicially what it thinks the legislature would have done had it considered 

the issue. Thus, similar factors are at play when a court decides whether to imply 

legislative intent to create a tort remedy or whether to recognize a tort remedy 

judicially. One court may take the analysis as indicating an implied legislative 

intent to create a tort remedy; another may take it as indicating grounds for 

judicial recognition of a tort remedy. It is intellectually satisfying to accurately 

describe the path that the court takes to the tort remedy, but we should not let 

boxes and labels do too much of the work of the court.

When the legislature imposes a specific duty for the benefit of a specific class 

of persons that includes the plaintiffs, and the applicable factors indicate that 

a tort claim is appropriate, necessary, and consistent with the statute, we conclude that we should be no more loath to create a remedy for a violation of the 

statute than we are when we imply a legislative intent to create a remedy. In 

both instances, the legislature has failed to expressly create a remedy. In both 

instances, the court appropriately is attempting to determine the intent of the 

legislature and to effectuate the legislature’s policy choices; the court is not creating its own policy from whole cloth.

4 In this case, those are, in fact, the elements that plaintiffs pleaded. The 

court is wrong to take plaintiffs to task for not having “taken the trouble” to 

identify the elements of their claim. 356 Or at ___.
388 Doyle v. City of Medford

no different if the court instead determined that a tort 

claim for damages would be “consistent with the statute, appropriate for promoting its policy and needed to 

ensure its effectiveness.”5 Restatement at § 874A comment h.

Scovill is illustrative. In Scovill, the court stated 

two different rationales for its conclusion that the plaintiff 

had a tort remedy for violation of ORS 426.460(1) (1989): 

that the legislature intended that remedy and that the court 

would recognize that remedy. Scovill, 324 Or at 169-73. 

Under either rationale, however, the elements of the plaintiff’s claim were the same: that defendant violated the statute by allowing the decedent to leave the police station and 

that the decedent was injured as a result. Id. at 166-67. It is 

the statutory duty that determines the elements of the tort 

claim, not whether the legislature intended or the court created the remedy.

In determining whether to recognize a tort claim 

for damages in this case, the court should have considered whether such a claim would be consistent with ORS 

243.303(2), appropriate for promoting its policy, and needed 

to ensure its effectiveness. Restatement at § 874A comment 

h. The court should not have become distracted by a need 

to label the claim or determine its elements, including its 

requisite “mental state.” The latter issues are, at this stage, 

easily resolved by focusing on the statute at issue and the 

duty it imposes.

A. Consideration Of The Restatement Factors

When correctly applied, the six nonexclusive 

Restatement factors designed to assist courts in considering whether to recognize a tort remedy for violation of ORS 

5 The result was different in Cain v. Rijken, 300 Or 706, 717 P2d 140 (1986), 

because the statute at issue did not impose a specific obligation. Instead, the 

court interpreted the statute to impose a duty to “act reasonably in treating and 

controlling conditionally released patients.” Id. at 721. Because the statute incorporated a negligence standard of care and not a more specific, mandated duty, the 

court explained that negligence principles of reasonable care and foreseeability 

of harm were relevant. Id. at 715-16. Contrary to the court’s assertion, 356 Or at 

___, Cain does not represent the only circumstance in which a court may create a 

tort remedy for the violation of a statutory duty.
Cite as 356 Or 336 (2014) 389

243.303(2) weigh in favor of judicial recognition.6

 I will discuss each in order.

1. Nature of the Statutory Duty

The first Restatement factor is the nature of the 

statutory duty:

“Does [the statute] clearly let both the court and the actor 

know in advance what conduct is prohibited? Or is it posed 

in broad, general terms that will acquire specific meaning 

only if—and after—the court has determined to supply the 

tort remedy and expressed it for the benefit of the persons 

being affected?”

Restatement at § 874A comment h(1). This factor asks 

whether the statute at issue sufficiently notifies the court 

and potential defendants of the risk of liability.

In this case, the court recognizes that “the city’s 

duty under ORS 243.303(2) is specific: The city shall provide 

health insurance to retirees on the same basis as provided 

to current employees.” 356 Or at ___ (emphasis in original). 

The court then notes that the statute qualifies that specific 

and mandatory duty with the phrase “insofar as and to 

the extent possible” and that that qualification makes the 

“standard of conduct less certain.” Id. at ___. But whether 

a statutory standard of conduct is “less certain” than it theoretically could be does not address whether the statutory 

duty is sufficiently certain to satisfy the first Restatement

factor. The court does not engage in that analysis. Instead, 

the court questions whether plaintiffs’ claim comports with 

“any existing tort claim.” Id. at ___. Because plaintiffs do 

not label the tort claim that they seek to bring except as 

a “violation of ORS 243.303,” the court expresses concern 

about the elements of the claim that the court would recognize and the “mental state” that it would “supply.” Id. at ___ 

(citing Burnette v. Wahl, 284 Or 705, 711-12, 588 P2d 1105 

6 Those factors are (1) the nature of the legislative provision; (2) the adequacy of existing remedies; (3) the extent to which the tort action will aid or 

supplement or interfere with existing remedies and other means of enforcement; 

(4) the significance of the purpose that the legislative body is seeking to effectuate; (5) the extent of the change in tort law; (6) the burden that the new cause of 

action will place on the judicial machinery. Restatement at § 874A comment h.
390 Doyle v. City of Medford

(1978)).7

 Based on that analysis, the majority finds that the 

first Restatement factor weighs against the creation of a tort.

The court’s analysis is off-base in two different 

directions. First, the court incorrectly assumes that it can 

recognize only common-law tort claims that comport with 

existing torts. Second, the court does not address the question actually posed by the first Restatement factor—whether 

the statutory duty at issue is sufficiently specific to be 

enforceable in a private right of action.

As to the first bar that the court raises, it should 

not be at all surprising that plaintiffs “have not identified 

any existing tort that comports with their pleaded theory.” 

Id. at ___. If plaintiffs could identify such a tort, they would 

not need to ask this court for assistance. In each instance 

in which a plaintiff asks this court to recognize or create 

a private right of action for damages based on the breach 

of a statutory duty, it is the statute that the plaintiff seeks 

to enforce that establishes the nature of that duty and the 

elements of the plaintiff’s claim. Thus, this court has held, 

“[O]ne who violates a statute enacted for protection of others 

may be civilly liable in damages for injuring the protected 

interest even when there is no corresponding common law 

basis of recovery.” Cain v. Rijken, 300 Or 706, 715-16, 717 

P2d 140 (1986).

In this case, plaintiffs, like the plaintiffs in Nearing 

and Chartrand, pleaded that defendant violated an Oregon 

statute and that plaintiffs suffered damages as a result. The 

fact that plaintiffs did not reference or incorporate additional 

elements of existing torts does not mean that the statute at 

issue is insufficiently clear to permit a tort remedy. The correct question for analysis is whether the duty imposed by 

7 The court’s citation to Burnette for the proposition that “we are reluctant 

to supply elements of a common-law claim for relief that plaintiffs have failed to 

identify” is incorrect. In Burnette, the court considered the Restatement factors 

but did not address the need to plead the elements of an existing tort or the 

nature of the statutory duty. Burnette, 284 Or at 725-26. Instead, the court discussed a separate Restatement factor: the extent to which the action will aid or 

supplement or interfere with existing claims and associated remedies and other 

means of enforcement. Restatement at § 874A comment h(3). In this case, the 

court concludes that that factor weighs in favor of plaintiffs. 356 Or at ___.
Cite as 356 Or 336 (2014) 391

ORS 243.303(2) is sufficiently specific that a tort claim is an 

appropriate means of enforcement.

The court’s second error is in its consideration of 

that question. The statutory duty at issue is the duty to 

provide health insurance to retirees on the same basis as 

provided to current employees. ORS 243.303(2). That duty 

is subject to an affirmative defense—“that it was not possible, under the statutory standard, to make coverage available to retirees.” Doyle v. City of Medford, 347 Or 564, 579, 

227 P3d 683 (2010). The court does not take the position 

that that defense makes the statutory duty so general that 

it does not give rise to an action for damages. In fact, the 

court acknowledges that that duty is actionable under the 

Declaratory Judgments Act, and correctly so.

In other cases, this court has considered statutory 

duties that are more general than the duty imposed by 

ORS 243.303(2) and statutory duties that are subject to 

affirmative defenses and has concluded that those duties 

permit tort remedies. For instance, in Cain, the court 

considered a statutory duty to “act reasonably in treating 

and controlling conditionally released patients,” 300 Or at 

721, and the statutory duty at issue in Nearing is subject 

to affirmative defenses, 295 Or at 709. In both cases, the 

court held that the legislatively created duties gave rise to 

tort claims.

In Nearing, a police officer had a statutory obligation to arrest a person if the officer had probable cause to 

believe that the person had violated a restraining order. 295 

Or at 710. Thus, whether the officer had an obligation to act 

depended on the officer’s determination of “probable cause.” 

Id. Nevertheless, the court held that relevant statutes “identify with precision when, to whom, and under what circumstances” the police must arrest a person. Id. at 712. Further, 

the court noted that there could be various defenses to a 

plaintiff’s claim that an officer had violated those statutes 

and that an officer “would not be liable, for instance, for failing to make an unconstitutional arrest.” Id. at 709. However, 

the court went on to explain, the fact that a defense could be 

asserted did not preclude a civil action to enforce the statutory duty. Id.
392 Doyle v. City of Medford

Just as the availability of an affirmative defense 

did not preclude a tort claim for damages in Nearing, the 

availability of an affirmative defense should not preclude a 

similar claim here. It was the legislature that imposed the 

statutory duty in both cases. And if the legislature deemed 

the duty at issue in Nearing sufficiently certain to give rise 

to tort liability, I do not see why this court should hesitate to 

do likewise when it considers the clarity of the duty imposed 

by ORS 243.303(2).

I also wonder how that statutory duty can be sufficiently certain to give rise to a remedy for monetary damages under the Declaratory Judgments Act, but not sufficiently certain to permit the same tort remedy. Perhaps the 

court gleans from the Declaratory Judgments Act a legislative intent to permit an award of monetary damages for 

violation of ORS 243.303(2) regardless of that statute’s specificity or lack of clarity. However, if the court’s decision rests 

on its recognition of legislative intent, then the court should 

not hesitate to give effect to that intent by recognizing a 

damages remedy in tort.

By requiring local governments to make available to 

retirees the same health insurance benefits that they make 

available to current employees, ORS 243.303(2) specifically 

advises the court and potential defendants what conduct is 

required. The first Restatement factor weighs in favor of recognizing a tort remedy for violation of that statutory duty.

2. Adequacy of Existing Remedies

The second factor identified in Restatement § 874A 

is:

“What other remedies are available in the court’s repertoire and how effective will they be? Will a declaratory 

judgment or the granting of an injunction prove better than 

the damage remedy because it is easier to administer or 

more effective?”

Restatement at § 874A comment h(2).

The court concludes that, “[b]ecause declaratory 

relief would be effective to redress the injuries that plaintiffs 

assert (including the right to damages for past statutory violations), the adequacy of such relief disfavors the provision 
Cite as 356 Or 336 (2014) 393

of an additional common law claim for relief sounding in 

tort.” 356 Or at ___. That does not answer the question 

that the Restatement poses. The Restatement asks whether 

declaratory judgment or injunctive relief will prove better 

than a damages remedy, indicating that the drafters of the 

Restatement considered an action for a declaratory judgment to be a claim seeking only a declaration of the rights 

or duties of the parties and not a claim for monetary relief. If 

the Restatement’s reference to “declaratory judgment” were 

intended to include a judgment for monetary damages, then 

the question would not make sense. It would ask, in effect, 

whether a damages remedy would “prove better” than a 

damages remedy.

In this case, if the second Restatement factor is 

understood as asking whether a declaration of rights or duties 

would better effectuate the purpose of ORS 243.303(2) than 

a damages remedy, the answer to the question is an obvious 

no. Declaratory or injunctive relief would not be sufficient 

to effectuate the policy behind that statute—to protect local 

government retirees from the cost of independently obtaining health insurance. The pecuniary nature of the interest 

protected by the statute suggests that a damages remedy 

is appropriate. The court appears to agree, but concludes 

that the second Restatement factor weighs against plaintiffs, based on its view that plaintiffs can recover their costs 

by means of a claim under the Declaratory Judgments Act. 

That is not, however, the analysis that the Restatement contemplates, and it is not a convincing reason to refuse to recognize the existence of a common-law tort claim.8

To the contrary, judicial recognition of a tort claim 

provides a better vehicle for a claim for money damages 

than does the Declaratory Judgments Act. A court may use 

familiar concepts to determine the elements of a tort claim, 

the available defenses, and the cognizable damages, among 

other issues. A court will confront those same issues in considering a claim under the Declaratory Judgments Act but 

8 If the availability of damages under the Declaratory Judgments Act were 

a basis for denying judicial recognition of a common-law claim, one would think 

that this court would have discussed that act when previously considering the 

issue.
394 Doyle v. City of Medford

will not have the benefit of developed tort law in considering 

them.

That is, of course, unless the court intends to use 

tort principles to decide issues raised under the Declaratory 

Judgments Act. That that may, in fact, be the court’s intent 

is apparent from the court’s analysis of the recoverable damages in this case. The Declaratory Judgments Act permits a 

court to award supplemental relief “whenever necessary or 

proper.” ORS 28.080. The court notes, correctly, that such 

supplemental relief may include “cognizable damages,” 356 

Or at ___, and that those “cognizable damages” include “economic damages for the cost of obtaining substitute health 

insurance,” id. at ___. Although the court does not state the 

basis for that conclusion in that part of its opinion, the court 

later addresses the damages that plaintiffs could recover 

if the court were to recognize their claims as a tort claim. 

Id. at ___. There, the court explains that permitting plaintiffs to recover damages for their psychic injuries would 

require an extension of current tort law. Id. at ___. If the 

court means to imply that the damages that plaintiffs may 

recover under the Declaratory Judgments Act are defined 

by reference to tort law and similarly intends to look to tort 

law for the answers to other questions necessary to adjudicate plaintiffs’ claims, I fail to see why a remedy under the 

Declaratory Judgments Act proves better than a tort remedy. Refusing to call plaintiffs’ claim a tort but expecting 

courts to incorporate tort principles introduces unnecessary 

confusion.

3. Other Means of Enforcement

I agree with the court’s conclusion that judicial recognition of a tort claim for damages would not interfere with 

any other vehicle for enforcement of the city’s duty under 

ORS 243.303(2). 356 Or at ___. I also agree that that third 

Restatement factor favors plaintiffs. Id. at ___.

4. The Significance of the Purpose the Legislature 

Seeks to Effectuate

I agree with the court’s conclusion that a local government’s statutory duty to provide health care benefits to 

retirees on the same basis that it provides those benefits to 
Cite as 356 Or 336 (2014) 395

current employees is important. Id. at ___. When it amended 

ORS 243.303(2), the legislature deliberately made that duty 

mandatory rather than permissive. Although the legislature 

also permitted local governments to demonstrate impossibility of compliance as an affirmative defense, that defense 

does not make the duty it imposed any less important. The 

fourth Restatement factor favors plaintiffs.

5. Extent of Change in Law

The fifth Restatement factor poses the following two 

questions:

“How drastic is the change from established law? How near 

is the factual situation before the court to an existing tort?”

Restatement at § 874A comment h(5). When assessing that 

factor, the court changes the questions and undertakes an 

analysis of whether allowing plaintiffs to recover noneconomic damages would require a change in existing law. 356 

Or at ___. The fifth Restatement factor focuses on the nature 

of the claim that the court is asked to recognize, not on the 

extent of the damages that the plaintiff may be entitled to 

recover. The court recognizes as much when it states that, 

“[o]f course, noneconomic damages are a type of remedy, not 

a claim for relief. Therefore, this court could create a tort 

claim that would permit the recovery of economic damages 

alone if it were appropriate and necessary to do so.” Id. at 

___ (emphasis in original).9

Thus, when properly understood, the fifth 

Restatement factor also weighs in favor of plaintiffs. As 

explained at the outset, this court has recognized tort 

claims for the breach of specific statutory duties and, as the 

court concludes, permits a claim for violation of such duties 

under the Declaratory Judgments Act. If this court were to 

recognize a tort claim for breach of the duty established by 

ORS 243.303(2), the change in the law would not be drastic. 

9 At footnote 16, the court expresses a concern that economic damages may 

not be available for a strict liability claim, arguing that, for strict products liability claims, personal injury or property damage is required. Id. at ___ n16. A 

claim for violation of ORS 243.303(2) is not a strict products liability claim, nor 

is it a claim for a violation of a common-law duty of reasonable care. A claim for 

violation of ORS 243.303(2) is a common-law claim for a violation of a specific 

statutory duty.
396 Doyle v. City of Medford

There could be an issue, if appropriately and timely raised, 

of the type of damages available for such a claim. However, 

the fact that plaintiffs prayed for damages that may have 

been subject to a motion to strike is not a basis for deciding 

that plaintiffs have no tort remedy for a violation of ORS 

243.303(2).

6. The Burden that the new Claim Will Place on the 

Judiciary

I agree with the court that the judicial recognition 

of a tort action would not place a burden on the courts that 

should weigh against plaintiffs in this case. 356 Or at ___.

B. Determining Whether To Recognize A Damages Remedy

When correctly analyzed, all of the Restatement factors weigh in favor of judicial recognition of a tort remedy for 

damages: Such a tort claim for damages is consistent with 

the statute, appropriate for promoting its policy, and needed 

to ensure its effectiveness. Although I agree with the court 

that plaintiffs are entitled to seek damages for a violation 

of ORS 243.303(2), I would embrace tort principles to reach 

that conclusion and to decide the other issues that such a 

claim may present.

Baldwin, J., joins in this concurring opinion.