Opinion ID: 2747140
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Other Means of Enforcement

Text: 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 374. I also agree that that third Restatement factor favors plaintiffs. Id. 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 Cite as 356 Or 336 (2014) 395 to current employees is important. Id. at 374-75. 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 375-76. 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 376 (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 370 n 16. 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 376. 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.