56 Trial Lawyer • Fall 2023 “dangerousness is clear” and communicated the urgency to admit the son to the emergency department. However, when the plaintiff took her son to be admitted later that day, personnel on the new shift failed to admit him. At home, the son stabbed the plaintiff with a knife and punctured her lung. This lawsuit was brought against the defendant hospital for, among other things, negligently “failing to restrain, admit or secure [the son], when they knew or had reason to know that he was mentally ill and a danger to himself or others.” On the defendant’s motion, the trial court dismissed the claims under Tomlinson and the argument that the defendant had no duty that ran to third parties. The Court of Appeals reversed that decision. The court concluded that, under the three considerations identified in Tomlinson and the circumstances of this case, the defendant was required to protect the third-party interests of the plaintiff. That was so because (1) the relationship of the parties entailed a mutual expectation of service and reliance; (2) the plaintiff was identifiable to the defendant because it was she who consistently attended her son’s medical appointments; and (3) the plaintiff’s claim does not interfere with or impair the defendant’s loyalties owed to the son. Genuine fact issues sufficient to defeat summary judgment existed on whether pedestrian injured on city bridge was walking for recreational purposes such that city was immune from liability. Fields v. City of Newport, 326 Or App 764 (2023), Mooney, J. Jennifer Hunking represented the plaintiff. In this slip and fall case, the plaintiff was walking her dog when she was injured on a wooden bridge owned by the defendant city. The trial court dismissed the case on the defendant’s argument that it was entitled to recreational immunity. The Court of Appeals reversed that decision. On appeal, the parties disputed whether the plaintiff’s activity of walking on the bridge was for “recreational purposes” as required under ORS 105.682 before immunity would apply. The defendant argued that the plaintiff was using the land for recreational purposes because “the trail [including the bridge] on which plaintiff was injured is * * * situated on ‘land adjacent or contiguous to * * * the ocean shore[.]” The Court of Appeals disagreed. If the city had improved and maintained the trail and bridge simply to provide access to the beach, recreational immunity would not apply. Whether the city had done so, and whether the plaintiff had used the trail and bridge to access the beach, left fact questions for a jury to decide. An agency’s approval of conduct that does not comply with the governing Sheets Continued from p 55
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTY1NDIzOQ==