Court Opinion

ID: 9789953
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:44:26.914754+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:25.336963
License: Public Domain

VAN HOOMISSEN, J.,
concurring in part; dissenting in part.
I would hold that plaintiffs second amended complaint fails to allege ultimate facts sufficient to constitute a claim for relief against defendant for negligence. Accordingly, *216I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs negligence claim.
Plaintiff should have pleaded with specificity that defendant knew, or should have known, that in the past its patrons at the 72nd and Fremont Branch had been robbed or assaulted while using the night depository. Instead he alleged only that at 6:30 p.m. on July 30, 1978, he went to the night depository to make a deposit for his employer and that when he approached the depository he was robbed and shot by an unknown third party. Those allegations fail to state a claim for relief against defendant bank. Uihlein v. Albertson’s, Inc., 282 Or 631, 639, 580 P2d 1014 (1978); Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Temco Met. Prod., 267 Or 230, 236, 516 P2d 80 (1973); see also Nigido v. First Nat. Bank of Baltimore, 264 Md 702, 288 A2d 127 (1972).
I concur with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court properly dismissed plaintiffs Employer’s Liability Act claim.