Davis v. Blanchard

733 P.2d 460, 84 Or. App. 99
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedFebruary 25, 1987
DocketA8510-06175; CA A39361
StatusPublished

This text of 733 P.2d 460 (Davis v. Blanchard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Davis v. Blanchard, 733 P.2d 460, 84 Or. App. 99 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

ROSSMAN, J.

Plaintiff commenced this negligence action on October 4, 1985, seeking to recover damages for permanent injuries sustained on May 4,1973, when she was five years old. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in ruling that the action is barred by ORS 12.115(1), the applicable statute of ultimate repose. It provides:

“In no event shall any action for negligent injury to person or property of another be commenced more than 10 years from the date of the act or omission complained of.”

Plaintiff contends that the limitation was tolled under ORS 12.155,1 because defendant’s insurer made advance payments to her without properly notifying her of the expiration date of the “applicable statute of limitations.” We affirm.

In DeLay v. Marathon LeTourneau Sales, 291 Or 310, 630 P2d 836 (1981), the issue was whether the statute of ultimate repose was tolled by the plaintiffs insanity, under ORS 12.160, which provides:

“If, at the time the cause of action accrues, any person entitled to bring an action mentioned in ORS 12.010 to 12.050 and 12.070 to 12.260 is:
<<* * * * *
“(2) Insane,* * *
<<* * * * *
“the time of such disability shall not be a part of the time limited for the commencement of the action * * *.”

[102]*102The court noted that, read literally, the language of ORS 12.115(1) and ORS 12.160 conflict. It concluded, however, that the words “in no event” in ORS 12.115(1) indicate that the tolling statute is not applicable to the statute of ultimate repose.

The same reasoning applies here. The plain language of ORS 12.115(1) clearly indicates that it is to control regardless of the circumstances. Accordingly, we conclude that ORS 12.115(1) is not subject to ORS 12.155.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

DeLay v. Marathon LeTourneau Sales & Service Co.
630 P.2d 836 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
733 P.2d 460, 84 Or. App. 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-blanchard-orctapp-1987.