Shervey v. Clackamas County

675 P.2d 1124, 66 Or. App. 886
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedFebruary 8, 1984
Docket80-12-494; CA A27113
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 675 P.2d 1124 (Shervey v. Clackamas County) 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
Shervey v. Clackamas County, 675 P.2d 1124, 66 Or. App. 886 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

WARREN, J.

The trial court entered a judgment dismissing plaintiffs personal injury action against Clackamas County on the ground that plaintiff had not complied with the notice requirements of ORS 30.275(1).1 We reverse and remand for a determination on the merits.

Plaintiff was injured in the motor vehicle accident out of which this litigation arose on January 5, 1979. Under ORS 30.275(1), she is entitled to bring a claim against Clackamas County after presenting the county clerk with written notice of the time, place and circumstances of her damages within 180 days after the alleged injury, which, in plaintiffs case, was July 4, 1979. On July 3, 1979, plaintiff mailed her notice of intent to file an action to the Clackamas County clerk by certified mail, return receipt requested. The notice was received by the clerk on July 6, 1979.

The issue presented is whether plaintiff adequately presented written notice to the county under the statute. Notice of claim by certified mail was specifically authorized in the version of ORS 30.275(1) effective at the time this dispute arose. The procedural rules then effective directed that, when not otherwise provided by statute, notice served by mail shall be deemed to be made on the day of deposit in the post office and not otherwise. Former ORS 16.770 and 16.790.2

[889]*889Because ORS 30.275(1) did not address the effect of depositing notice in the post office on the computation of the 180-day period, it is proper to follow the general procedural rule, in accordance with Oregon law and the common law. See Egge v. Davis, 27 Or App 383, 387, 556 P2d 153 (1976), rev den (1977). We conclude that, under the statutory scheme at the time this dispute arose, plaintiffs deposit of the notification in the mail on July 3, 1979, satisfied the requirement of notice under ORS 30.275(1).

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

McDonald v. State ex rel. Children's Services Division
694 P.2d 569 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
675 P.2d 1124, 66 Or. App. 886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shervey-v-clackamas-county-orctapp-1984.