Opinion ID: 1257672
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: discretionary immunity under the otca

Text: Defendants do not seek review of the ruling of the Court of Appeals concerning discretionary immunity on plaintiffs' negligence claim brought under the OTCA. See Tennyson v. Children's Services Division, supra, 93 Or. App. at 381, 762 P.2d 333. Instead, they argue that they are entitled to absolute immunity for all claims, regardless of whether those claims are brought under section 1983 or under the OTCA. In so arguing, defendants misperceive the nature and significance of discretionary immunity under ORS 30.265(3)(c). The statute insulates them from [a]ny claim based upon the performance of or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty, whether or not the discretion is abused. ORS 30.265(3)(c) grants absolute immunity for discretionary acts. See Praggastis v. Clackamas County, 305 Or. 419, 426-27, 752 P.2d 302 (1988) (common law immunities for judicial and quasi-judicial acts are part of immunities for discretionary acts under ORS 30.265(3)). Defendants are entitled to absolute immunity to the extent permitted by ORS 30.265(3)(c).