Court Opinion

ID: 9594823
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:33:13.699469+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:29.232321
License: Public Domain

NEWMAN, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the result. Plaintiff does not plead facts that would allow her to recover her alleged damages under any negligence theory that Oregon courts have recognized. Even the dissent in Saechao v. Matsakoun, 78 Or App 340, 717 P2d 165, rev dismissed 302 Or 155, 727 P2d 126 (1986), in which I joined and which I still believe was correct, does not support her. See also Hoffman v. Stoll, 89 Or App 258, 259, 748 P2d 180, (Newman, J., dissenting), rev allowed 305 Or 576 (1988). Moreover, plaintiff pleads no injury to a child, but alleges that she is the “direct victim” of defendant’s negligence. Whatever emotional distress plaintiff suffered or expense she incurred could not be the result of any injury to a child. I agree that her allegation that she is a “direct victim” is merely a legal conclusion which her factual allegations do not support.