Nancy Doty, Inc. v. WildCat Haven, Inc.

“Persons listed in [ORS 656.018(3)] enjoy a broad grant of immunity for workplace injuries, even if they are acting in more than one capacity at the time of the injury.” Varland v. Smith, 112 Or App 271, 274, 828 P2d 1053, rev den, 313 Or 628 (1992). ORS 656.018(3)(d) excepts parties from immunity only where they acted “wholly outside the capacity of their immunity.”

Decedent was killed in the course of her employment by WildCat Haven, Inc. (“WildCat Haven”) which is owned by Defendants. Plaintiff, representing Decedent’s estate, appealed from the trial court’s limited judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s tort claims against Defendants individually and their other company, WildCat Haven Holdings I, LLC. (“Haven Holdings”). Plaintiff assigned error to the trial court’s holding that Defendants and Haven Holdings were immune to tort claims under ORS 656.018, which establishes worker’s compensation liability as the sole liability of an employer for injuries arising “in the course of employment.” On appeal, Plaintiff argued that Defendants were subject to premises liability because Defendants leased the land to WildCat Haven. Thus, Defendants acted “outside of the capacity” of their immunity, pursuant to ORS 656.018(3)(d). In response, Defendants argued that actions taken in multiple capacities are immune where at least one capacity is immune. “Persons listed in [ORS 656.018(3)] enjoy a broad grant of immunity for workplace injuries, even if they are acting in more than one capacity at the time of the injury.” Varland v. Smith, 112 Or App 271, 274, 828 P2d 1053 (1992). The Court found ORS 656.018(3)(d) excepts parties from immunity only where they acted “wholly outside the capacity of their immunity.” The Court held that the claims against Defendants were premised on conduct within the capacity of their roles at WildCat Haven, thus, Defendants were immune. Affirmed.