Article ID: 251547adc89850eb0226323c1509482bdd63b6006f5986422194c07112fc3ecd
Source ID: secondary:businessinsurance.com
Published At: -
Extraction Method: trafilatura
URL: https://www.businessinsurance.com/oregon-supreme-court-strikes-down-tort-immunity-for-state-workers/
Body Text
The Oregon Supreme Court ruled that a legal provision granting immunity to state employees in cases where injured workers receive workers compensation benefits violates the state constitution’s remedy clause. The decision allows privately employed workers injured by negligent state employees to pursue common-law negligence claims despite receiving workers compensation benefits. In a divided decision in Shirley Crandall et al. v. State of Oregon et al., the court held that workers compensation benefits do not provide a constitutionally adequate substitute for the elimination of common-law negligence claims against individual state employees. The ruling limits the application of ORS Section 30.265(6)(a), which bars negligence claims against the state and its workers for injuries covered by workers’ compensation. The case arose from injuries suffered by Shirley “Joe” Crandall, a privately employed firefighter contracted to the Oregon Department of Forestry who was seriously hurt in 2018 when a bulldozer he was operating overturned. Mr. Crandall received workers compensation benefits and sued two state supervisors, alleging negligent instructions given under poor visibility conditions. Lower courts dismissed the claims, citing statutory immunity. The Supreme Court reversed Thursday, relying heavily on its decisions in Horton v. Oregon Health Sciences University and Busch v. McInnis Waste Systems. While the court has upheld legislative limits on remedies where an adequate substitute exists, the majority concluded that workers compensation benefits alone fall short. Unlike the $3 million damages cap upheld in Horton, which preserved access to a solvent defendant, the immunity provision entirely eliminates a common-law remedy without offering a comparable alternative. In its ruling, the court emphasized that negligence claims against individual state employees represent a long-recognized common-law right and that extending sovereign immunity to those employees constitutes a substantial departure from that framework. Workers compensation provides medical and partial wage benefits but no noneconomic damages, while injured workers typically retain the right to pursue full damages against negligent third parties. In dissent, two justices argued that workers compensation is a substantial remedy because it guarantees benefits without requiring proof of fault. WorkCompCentral is a sister publication of Business Insurance. More stories here.
Metadata (JSON)
{
"score": 5.733333333333333
}