Source: https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/30.905
Timestamp: 2019-09-16 08:44:08
Document Index: 263737837

Matched Legal Cases: ['§3', '§1', '§1', '§6', '§1', '§1', '§2']

ORS 30.905 - Time limitation for commencement of action - 2017 Oregon Revised Statutes
2017 ORS Vol. 1 Chapter 30 Section 30.905
2017 ORS 30.905¹
(3) Subject to the limitation imposed by subsection (4) of this section, a product liability civil action for death must be commenced not later than three years after the decedent, the personal representative for the decedent or a person for whose benefit an action could be brought under ORS 30.020 (Action for wrongful death) discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the causal relationship between the death and the product, or the causal relationship between the death and the conduct of the defendant.
(4) A product liability civil action for death must be commenced before the earlier of:
(a) Three years after the death of the decedent;
(b) Ten years after the date on which the product was first purchased for use or consumption; or
(c) The expiration of any statute of repose for an equivalent civil action in the state in which the product was manufactured, or, if the product was manufactured in a foreign country, the expiration of any statute of repose for an equivalent civil action in the state into which the product was imported.
(5) This section does not apply to a civil action brought against a manufacturer, distributor, seller or lessor of a manufactured dwelling, as defined in ORS 446.003 (Definitions for ORS 446.003 to 446.200 and 446.225 to 446.285 and ORS chapters 195, 196, 197, 215 and 227), or of a prefabricated structure, as defined in ORS 455.010 (Definitions for ORS chapter 455). Actions described in this subsection are subject to the statute of limitations provided by ORS 12.135 (Action for damages from construction, alteration or repair of improvement to real property). [1977 c.843 §3; 1983 c.143 §1; 1987 c.4 §1; 1993 c.259 §6; 2003 c.768 §1; 2009 c.485 §1]
Note: Section 2, chapter 485, Oregon Laws 2009, provides:
Sec. 2. The amendments to ORS 30.905 (Time limitation for commencement of action) by section 1 of this 2009 Act apply only to causes of action that arise on or after the effective date of this 2009 Act [January 1, 2010]. [2009 c.485 §2]
ORS 12.160 (Suspension for minors and persons who have disabling mental condition) tolled running of statute of limita­tions in ac­tion brought under this sec­tion during plaintiff’s mi­nority. Kearney v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 55 Or App 641, 639 P2d 682 (1982)
Physician’s third-party claim for indemnity against manufacturer of medicine is not product liability civil ac­tion subject to period of ultimate repose of this sec­tion. Huff v. Shiomi, 73 Or App 609, 699 P2d 1178 (1985)
In third-party ac­tion against product manufacturer, fact that original plaintiff’s claim against one tortfeasor is time-barred does not preclude sec­ond tortfeasor who discharges obliga­tion to plaintiff from bringing indemnity ac­tion and proving that first tortfeasor was liable to plaintiff at time plaintiff’s claim accrued. Huff v. Shiomi, 73 Or App 609, 699 P2d 1178 (1985)
This sec­tion applies only to acts, omissions or condi­tions existing or occurring before or at “date on which the product was first purchased for use or consump­tion.” Erickson Air-Crane v. United Tech. Corp., 303 Or 281, 735 P2d 614 (1987), as modified by303 Or 452, 736 P2d 1023 (1987)
“Product liability civil ac­tions” as defined in this sec­tion means all claims for prop­erty damage arising out of a “design, inspec­tion, testing, manufacturing or other defect in a product” and sec­tion was applicable even though plaintiffs pleaded strict liability, negligence and breach of warranty claims. Bancorp Leasing and Financial Corp. v. Agusta Avia­tion Corp., 813 F2d 272 (1987)
Legislature’s retroactive applica­tion of limita­tion period amend­ments to revive ac­tions pre­vi­ously dismissed by courts for lack of time­liness did not violate state constitu­tional pro­vi­sions governing separa­tion of powers. McFadden v. Dryvit Systems, Inc., 338 Or 528, 112 P3d 1191 (2005); Fox v. Collins, 213 Or App 451, 162 P3d 998 (2007), Sup Ct review denied
19 WLR 322 (1983); 70 OLR 685 (1991); 28 WLR 565 (1992); 88 OLR 963 (2009)