Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Gattman v. Favro
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided September 29, 1987No. A8309-05921; CA A37387Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDeits, J.
I concur in the majority’s disposition of the claims based on negligence and negligence per se, but dissent from the disposition of the statutory tort claim. That claim alleges that defendant violated ORS 30.950:
“No licensee or permitee is liable for damages incurred or caused by intoxicated patrons off the licensee’s or permitee’s business premises unless the licensee or permitee has served or provided the patron alcoholic beverages when such patron was visibly intoxicated.”
I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that ORS 30.950 does not limit recoverable damages to those caused by…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Rappaport v. NicholsSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1959
- Nearing v. WeaverOregon Supreme Court · 1983
- Campbell v. CarpenterOregon Supreme Court · 1977
- Sager v. McClendenOregon Supreme Court · 1983
- Davis v. Billy's Con-Teena, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1978
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.