Court Opinion

ID: 9562475
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:29:55.601448+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:22.341721
License: Public Domain

JOSEPH, P.J.,
dissenting
I quote from appellant’s reply brief:
"As the briefs in this case readily demonstrate, the legislature’s actions over the years concerning ORS 30.275 have been varied and confusing. This court cannot supply essential elements of a statutory scheme omitted by mistake or design. See Thornton v. Hamlin, 41 Or App 363, 597 P2d 1307 (1979). Without any proof of legislative intent, as to the 1975 amendment, this court should interpret the 1975 version of ORS 30.275 consistently with the rest of the Oregon Tort Claims Act. That is, the act should be construed consistently with the definition of 'public body’ within the act itself.”
To that all that needs be added is that the majority’s quotation from ORS 30.285(7), supra at 399, and the emphasized portion thereof, is a very weak reed. All that language says is that if the notice requirement of ORS 30.275 applies, it still applies even if individuals are sued.
Once again we are doing the legislature’s work better than it did it, and I dissent.