of Zavalas is unaffected by Tomlinson v. Metropolitan Pediatrics, LLC, 362 Or 431, 434, 412 P3d 133 (2018), in which the Supreme Court held that more than foreseeability was required to support the negligence claim where the plaintiffs sought damages only for economic and emotional harm, not physical injury, and, where the defendants did not create the risk to which the plaintiffs were exposed. Neither of the circumstances from Tomlinson existed here; the plaintiff sought damages for physical injury, and the defendants allegedly created the risk to Stone by negligently prescribing and dispensing drugs to Witt. The COVID-19 relief bill, House Bill 4212, extended the statute of limitations for civil actions only through December 31, 2021. Mouton v. Tri-Met, Yeager v. Montgomery, and Flanders v. WinCo, 331 Or App 247 (2024); (Aoyagi, P. J.). In these three civil cases, which were consolidated for the purposes of opinion, the plaintiffs were represented by Will Merkel, Andrew Wilson and Apolinar Montero-Sanchez, respectively. Elizabeth Savage filed a brief on behalf of OTLA. In each of these cases, the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s negligence action as time barred. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing their complaint was filed timely in light of temporary legislation enacted early in the COVID-19 pandemic extending the statutes of limitations for civil actions. Specifically, the plaintiffs relied on House Bill (HB) 4212 (2020), as amended by Senate Bill (SB) 296 (2021) and SB 813 (2021). The disputed issue was one of statutory construction requiring the court to determine whether the extended statute-of-limitations period in HB 4212 ended on December 31, 2021 (the repeal date), March 31, 2022 (90 days after the repeal date), or June 30, 2022 (90 days after the end of the COVID-19 state of emergency). Applying the Gaines framework, the Court of Appeals held that the statutory provisions, read together, extended the statute of limitations for civil actions only through December 31, 2021. The Oregon Residential Landlord and Tenant Act does not apply to common areas. Jackson v. KA-3 Associates, LLC, 331 Or App 574 (2024); Egan, J. The plaintiff was represented by Will Merkel. The plaintiff was a tenant who was struck on the head by a light fixture cover in the common area of the defendant’s apartment complex and sustained injuries as a result. The plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence and violation of the Oregon Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (ORLTA), ORS 90.320(1)(e), (f), and (h). The circuit court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds the ORLTA does not apply to the plaintiff’s claim, because the incident did not occur in a dwelling unit, and the plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient to invoke the theory of res ipsa loquitur on the negligence claim. The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held the ORLTA did not apply to the plaintiff’s claim, because the injury did not occur in a dwelling unit. The court also Between the Sheets continued from p. 55 “The circuit court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds the ORLTA does not apply to the plaintiff’s claim, because the incident did not occur in a dwelling unit, and the plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient to invoke the theory of res ipsa loquitur on the negligence claim. …The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed.” 56 Trial Lawyer | Summer 2024
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Nzc3ODM=