Ward v. Romig

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Ward v. Romig

790 P.2d 44, 101 Or. App. 235, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 320

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 4, 1990

Docket88-3-241; CA A50858

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 790 P.2d 44 (Ward v. Romig) 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

Ward v. Romig, 790 P.2d 44, 101 Or. App. 235, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 320 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff was injured in a collision between her vehicle, which she was driving in the course of her employment, and one that defendant Romig was driving in the course of her employment for defendant City of Lake Oswego. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs injury was covered by the Workers’ Compensation Law and that defendants are therefore immune from liability under ORS 30.265(3)(a). Plaintiff appeals and contends that the statute violates Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution, and the Equal Protection Clause and the Commerce Clause and the right to travel under the United States Constitution.

We rejected arguments analogous or identical to plaintiffs Article I, section 20, and equal protection contentions in Jungen v. State of Oregon, 94 Or App 101, 764 P2d 938 (1988), rev den 307 Or 658 (1989). Her Commerce Clause and right to travel arguments fail, inter alia, because nothing in the record or in her arguments, other than her theoretical conjectures, supports her understanding that the statute has had or can have any effect on or relationship to interstate commerce or travel.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff was injured in a collision between her vehicle, which she was driving in the course of her employment, and one that defendant Romig was driving in the course of her employment for defendant City of Lake Oswego. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs injury was covered by the Workers’ Compensation Law and that defendants are therefore immune from liability under ORS 30.265(3)(a). Plaintiff appeals and contends that the statute violates Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution, and the Equal Protection Clause and the Commerce Clause and the right to travel under the United States Constitution.

We rejected arguments analogous or identical to plaintiffs Article I, section 20, and equal protection contentions in Jungen v. State of Oregon, 94 Or App 101, 764 P2d 938 (1988), rev den 307 Or 658 (1989). Her Commerce Clause and right to travel arguments fail, inter alia, because nothing in the record or in her arguments, other than her theoretical conjectures, supports her understanding that the statute has had or can have any effect on or relationship to interstate commerce or travel.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

790 P.2d 44, 101 Or. App. 235, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-romig-orctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack