Court Opinion

ID: 9569517
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:14:35.475384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:03:22.668426
License: Public Domain

VAN HOOMISSEN, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the majority’s result.
*284In February, 1986, when the trial judge dismissed plaintiffs complaint for failure to state claims on which relief could be granted, the judge’s order was legally correct on the basis of then existing Oregon authority. Thereafter, in Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, 303 Or 1, 734 P2d 1326 (1987), Kimbler v. Stillwell, 303 Or 23, 734 P2d 1344 (1987), and Donaca v. Curry Co., 303 Or 30, 734 P2d 1339 (1987), the Supreme court moved the goal posts. As I read those cases, dismissal of a negligence complaint under ORCP 21A for failure to state ultimate facts sufficient to constitute a claim should almost never be allowed except, of course, “in an extreme case,” whatever that means. See Donaca v. Curry Co., supra, 303 Or at 38.