Legal Opinion

McAlpine v. Multnomah County

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided April 12, 2000No. C93-0353CV and C93-1019CV CA A90656(Control) and CA A90657PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDe Muniz, P. J.

In these consolidated negligence actions, plaintiffs appeal from a judgment dismissing their complaints for failure to state ultimate facts sufficient to constitute a claim. ORCP 21 A(8). The issue is whether defendant Multnomah County may be held liable for the harm plaintiffs suffered at the hands of Charlesworth, a parolee, based on section 319 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1974), or because defendant’s actions created a reasonably foreseeable risk that plaintiffs would suffer such harm. We reverse.

Previously, we affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff Robert McAlpine’s complaint…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Fazzolari v. Portland School District No. 1JOregon Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Buchler v. Oregon Corrections Div.Oregon Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Erickson v. ChristensonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989
  4. McAlpine v. Multnomah CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1994
  5. Faverty v. McDonald's Restaurants of Oregon, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1995

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Hayes Oyster Co. v. DulcichCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
  2. McPherson v. State Ex Rel. Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2007
  3. Knepper v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
  4. Panpat v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
  5. Sande v. City of PortlandCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API