Prince v. Joe Cronin Logging, LLC (A182533)

342 Or. App. 371

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: July 30, 2025
• Docket: A182533
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

No. 702 July 30, 2025 371

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

Danielle PRINCE, in her capacity as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Trenton Todd Prince, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOE CRONIN LOGGING, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, Defendant, and HOWARD RANCH, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, Defendant-Respondent. Harney County Circuit Court 21CV39441; A182533

Wes Williams, Judge. Argued and submitted December 6, 2024. David Wallace, Esq., argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant. James L. Hiller argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief was Hitt Hiller Monfils Williams, LLP. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Hellman, Judge, and Leith, Senior Judge.* LEITH, S. J. Affirmed.

______________ * Leith, Senior Judge, vice Mooney, Senior Judge. 372 Prince v. Joe Cronin Logging, LLC (A182533)

LEITH, S. J. Plaintiff, the daughter of Trenton Prince (decedent), brought this wrongful death action against defendants Joe Cronin Logging, LLC (Cronin Logging) and Howard Ranch, LLC (Howard Ranch) after her father died in a worksite acci- dent. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiff then filed separate appeals as to each defendant. This is plaintiff’s appeal from the grant of sum- mary judgment in favor of Howard Ranch. We affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Cronin Logging by a published opinion decided this date. Prince v. Joe Cronin Logging, LLC (A182528) 342 Or App 288, ____ P3d ___ (July 30, 2025). Much of that analysis applies equally here. We affirm. Both of plaintiff’s assignments of error on this appeal relate expressly to a purported claim for relief under the Employer Liability Law (ELL), ORS 654.305 to ORS 654.336. As we explained in the related appeal, plaintiff’s effective complaint asserts only one claim for relief against both defendants. Cronin Logging, 342 Or App at 290-91, 297-300. That is a claim for wrongful death based on neg- ligence. We thus reject plaintiff’s contention that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on a purported, but omitted, claim under the ELL. Plaintiff’s first assignment of error also contends that the trial court erred by ruling on summary judg- ment that Howard Ranch is not vicariously liable for the alleged liability of Cronin Logging. In the related appeal, we affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Cronin Logging. That result obviates the need to address any issue as to Howard Ranch’s vicarious liability. Affirmed.