Opinion ID: 1372176
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Oregon Tort Claims Act.

Text: As previously stated, the question to be decided is whether an action for wrongful death of a decedent leaving a widow and five children is subject to the $100,000 limitation imposed by ORS 30.270(1)(b) of the Oregon Tort Claims Act upon liability of public bodies or their officers, employees or agents to any claimant for all other claims arising out of a single accident or occurrence, or whether such an action is subject to the $300,000 limitation imposed by ORS 30.270(1)(c) upon liability for any number of claims arising out of a single accident or occurrence. The terms claimant and claims, as used in ORS 30.270, may be said to be ambiguous in the legal sense as applied to actions for wrongful death. In an attempt to discover the intent of the legislature in the use of these terms in this context, we have examined the legislative history of ORS 30.270 but have not discovered anything of any substantial assistance. We must therefore seek a solution to this problem by analysis of the terms of the Oregon Tort Claims Act, including ORS 30.270, when read together with the terms of the Oregon Wrongful Death Act. As previously stated, in actions for wrongful death involving a widow and minor children, they are the real parties in interest insofar as their claims under ORS 30.020(2)(d) for pecuniary loss and loss of services are concerned. It follows, in our judgment, that in such a case the personal representative of the estate, in prosecuting such claims under the Oregon Tort Claims Act in an action for wrongful death under the present Oregon Wrongful Death Act, acts only as a nominal party and is not a single claimant within the meaning of ORS 30.270(1)(b), so as to be subject to the limitation of $100,000 imposed by that subsection. Similarly, it follows, in our judgment, that in such a case there is more than one claim and more than one claimant within the meaning of ORS 30.270(1)(c), so as to be subject to the limitation of $300,000 as provided by that subsection. [7] For these reasons, the decision by the Court of Appeals reversing the trial court for sustaining defendants' demurrer to plaintiff's complaint must be affirmed because this court is equally divided on that question, but both the Court of Appeals and the trial court must be reversed for holding that the claims presented in this action for wrongful death, including claims for the benefit of decedent's widow and five children, are subject to the $100,000 limitation imposed by ORS 30.270(1)(b). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.