Dotson v. Motor Vehicles Division

The majority opinion presents substantial reasons for the result it reaches, and states a position that is not without merit. However, I think that requiring literal compliance with the sworn-report statute, and not requiring any showing of prejudice because of noncompliance, is inconsistent with decisions in numerous analogous situations.

I think it safe to generalize that Oregon cases have only required substantial compliance with statutes, and have required the party claiming noncompliance to establish prejudice. See, e.g., Stroh v. SAIF, 261 Or 117, 492 P2d 472 (1972). Some cases have…