Legal Opinion
Fuhrer v. Gearhart by the Sea, Inc.
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided August 30, 1988No. TC 84-181; CA A33304; SC S34460PublishedCited by 58 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*436LENT, J.
The issue is whether plaintiff has stated ultimate facts sufficient to constitute a claim for relief against defendants for defendants’ failure to warn plaintiffs decedent and others of the hazards of the ocean surf and for defendants’ failure to provide safety measures to protect against those hazards.1 Defendant Gearhart By the Sea, Inc. (Gearhart) moved to dismiss on the theory that it “owed no duty” to warn or protect from hazards not located on its premises. Defendant Department of Transportation, State of Oregon (the state), moved to dismiss on the theory that the state has no…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Fazzolari v. Portland School District No. 1JOregon Supreme Court · 1987
- Donaca v. Curry CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1987
- Mostert v. CBL & AssociatesWyoming Supreme Court · 1987
- Kimbler v. StillwellOregon Supreme Court · 1987
- Coos County v. StateOregon Supreme Court · 1987
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by58 opinions
- Glover v. Bic Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
- Buchler v. Oregon Corrections Div.Oregon Supreme Court · 1993
- Darby v. Compagnie National Air FranceNew York Court of Appeals · 2001
- Scovill v. City of AstoriaOregon Supreme Court · 1996
- Faverty v. McDonald's Restaurants of Oregon, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1995
53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.