Court Opinion

ID: 9604294
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:18:04.78269+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:19.902759
License: Public Domain

*513SLOAN, J.,
dissenting.
Assuming that the rationale of the majority opinion is correct in its attempt to solve the impossible distinction between discretionary and non-discretionary functions, it seems to me that the complaint does allege a cause of action of non-discretionary acts. The complaint is capable of being read to allege that defendants created a death trap and had reason to be aware of the hazard. The evidence may not sustain the allegations but the complaint does state a cause of action. The majority assume facts not alleged in order to reach the contrary result. A decision of this consequence, in its impact on the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 et seq. should not be based on assumption of fact.