Duyck v. Tualatin Valley Irrigation District

The majority misunderstands the nature of plaintiffs’ claims and, therefore, misanalyzes the Statute of Limitations questions that they present. Accordingly, I dissent on the appeal.

Plaintiffs have two claims. They allege that defendant 1) negligently represented to them that water would be *610available for the growing season and 2), subsequently, negligently failed to warn them that water would not be available as promised. Plaintiffs do not claim that defendants were negligent in failing to deliver water. The pleaded claims must be analyzed separately. In support of the first claim (for…