Woods v. Carl Karcher Enterprises Inc.

The majority concludes that the attorney fee provisions of ORS 20.080(1) require that a demand letter be “reasonably calculated to apprise the defendant of the demand,” and that, in this case, plaintiffs written demand to defendant did not meet that standard. For the reasons that follow, I would conclude otherwise. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

In this case, on September 26, 2000, plaintiff was injured in a slip and fall accident at a Carl’s Jr. restaurant in downtown Portland. After the accident, plaintiff received a letter from Constitution State Service Company, which described the…