46 Trial Lawyer • Winter 2024 specify the “places and circumstances” of the alleged torts. Specifically, the notices did not state which schools were involved, refer to student conduct or any specific events, or provide enough information for PPS to discern the perpetrators of the alleged misconduct. The court also held that the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs’ battery claims. The plaintiffs’ theory underlying those claims was that, under the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision in Granewich v. Harding, 329 Or 47 (1999), and the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 876 cmt b (1979), a defendant may be liable for another’s tort when the defendant knows that the other’s “conduct constitutes a breach of duty and gives substantial assistance or encouragement to the other so to conduct himself.” The court held that the plaintiffs had stated claims for relief under that theory. It rejected the plaintiffs’ theory of vicarious liability based on schools acting in loco parentis when students are in their care during the school day. On the plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim, the trial court had ruled that the plaintiffs failed to allege ultimate facts establishing a claim of sex discrimination constituting a hostile work environment. The Court of Appeals, looking to persuasive authority from the Ninth Circuit, held that a claim for harassment “based on sex” is not foreclosed by allegations that individuals of multiple sexes experience the same harassment. Finally, the court held that the trial court had erred in substituting PPS for the individual defendants on the ground that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged facts that, if true, would allow a jury to infer that the individual defendants’ conduct occurred outside the time and space limits authorized by their employment. In making the comparison required under ORCP 54 E(3), the trial court Sheets Continued from p 45
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTY1NDIzOQ==