Robbins v. City of Medford

Under ORS 30.265(6)(c), a governmental actor is entitled to discretionary immunity for allegedly negligent conduct only if: (1) the conduct is the product of a decision; (2) the decision must be a policy decision; (3) the decision must have been made by a governmental decision-maker with authority to make that type of policy decision.

Plaintiff appealed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of Medford (City) which determined Plaintiffs negligence claims were bared by the discretionary immunity provision of the Oregon Tort Claims Act 30.265(6)(c). On appeal, Plaintiff argued that summary judgment in favor of the City was inappropriate because there was conflicting evidence present regarding his allegation that the City was negligent in placing a marked crosswalk at the location where Plaintiff was injured. ORS 3065(6)(c) immunizes public bodies and their officers, agents and employees from liability for conduct that “is the result of a choice among competing policy considerations, made at the appropriate level of government.” Under ORS 30.265(6)(c), a governmental actor is entitled to discretionary immunity for allegedly negligent conduct only if: (1) the conduct is the product of a decision; (2) the decision must be a policy decision; (3) the decision must have been made by a governmental decision-maker with authority to make that type of policy decision.  In this case the Court of Appeals determined that there was conflicting evidence regarding the decision-making process that led to the placement of the crosswalk at the location where Plaintiff was injured. Reversed and remanded.