58 Trial Lawyer • Fall 2022 filed a dissenting opinion. The plaintiff was represented by Carl Post. Shenoa Payne filed an amicus brief on behalf of OTLA. The defendant was a private company that contracted with Clackamas County Jail to provide medical services to individuals in custody in the jail. The plaintiff, who is deaf, prefers to communicate through American Sign Language (ASL), services at a county jail, the defendant is a “place of public accommodation” within the meaning of ORS 659A.400 and can thus be subject to liability under Oregon’s public accommodations law. In doing so, the Supreme Court also concluded the plaintiff was a “customer” or “patron” within the meaning of ORS 659A.142 because he had used the medical services at the jail. Finally, the court concluded that a private contractor providing healthcare services at a county jail does not qualify for an exclusion under ORS 659A.400(2)(d) as a “local correction facility.” Justice Garrett, dissenting, would have concluded that the defendant was not subject to liability under the Oregon Public Accommodations Act for either of two reasons. First, according to Justice Garrett, a correctional facility is not a facility in which any good or service is offered “to the public” within the meaning of the law. Second, to the extent that there is room for disagreement on that point, Justice Garrett would hold that the 2013 Legislature specifically excluded correctional facilities from the definition of a “place of public accommodation.” DECISIONS OF THE OREGON COURT OF APPEALS No “inherent risk of participation in sports activity” where it is for the jury to decide reasonableness of defendant’s conduct and whether it created unreasonable risk of harm to plaintiff. Clark v. University of Oregon, 319 Or App 712 (2022), Egan, C.J. Brent Barton and Travis Eiva represented plaintiff. The plaintiff was playing basketball for a junior college when he was invited to visit the University of Oregon and run some drills by its assistant basketball coach. The coach devised the drills, instructed the plaintiff how to perform them and participated in playing opposition to the plaintiff ’s driving the ball to the basket as instructed. During a fourth his primary language. He also has diabetes. While he was in custody in the Clackamas County Jail, the defendant communicated with himwithout an ASL interpreter. As a result, the defendant wrongly placed the plaintiff on suicide watch, denied himmeals and denied him access to insulin. The plaintiff sued the defendant in federal district court alleging, among other things, that the defendant is a “place of public accommodation” that discriminated against him because he is “an individual with a disability,” in violation of ORS 659A.142(4). The district court dismissed the claims, concluding the defendant was not a “place of public accommodation” as defined by ORS 659A.400(1)(a), and therefore that ORS 659A.142(4) did not apply to the defendant. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the question to the Oregon Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that, as a private contractor providing healthcare Sheets Continued from p 57
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTY1NDIzOQ==