Hawkins v. Conklin

DEITS, J.,

specially concurring in part; dissenting in part.

For the reasons stated in my dissent in Gattman v. Favro, 86 Or App 227, 739 P2d 572 (1987), I dissent from the majority’s holding that plaintiff has an actionable statutory tort claim. For the reasons discussed in my separate opinion in Moore v. Willis, 86 Or App 493, 740 P2d 192 (1987), I reluctantly agree with the majority that plaintiff does state claims for negligence and negligence per se.