Stovall v. Sally Salmon Seafood

There are times when enforcing a pre-existing rule of law creates, or at least can appear to create, an injustice, but the rule must nonetheless be enforced. The majority treats this as such a case. The majority is wrong. There is no preexisting rule here.

The majority holds — and I agree — that Hallmark is the responsible employer under the last injurious exposure rule, See Boise Cascade Corp. v. Starbuck, 296 Or 238, 241, 675 P2d 1044 (1984), unless it is relieved of its responsibility by virtue of its estoppel claim. I also agree with the majority that the Court of Appeals has not given a…