Stone v. Witt

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Tort Law
  • Date Filed: 04-10-2024
  • Case #: A176439
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Aoyagi, P.J. for the Court; Joyce, J. and Jacquot, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

“[W]hen the typical foreseeability framework articulated in Fazzolari applies – when the plaintiff alleges the defendant’s conduct created the risk to a universally protected interest like the interest in avoiding physical harm – that is the end of the matter, and there is no need to consider the Tomlinson factors.”

Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his negligence claims against defendants. Plaintiff is the personal representative of Stone’s Estate. Stone was struck and killed by a vehicle driven by Witt. At the time, Witt had a substance use problem from misusing prescription medication prescribed and distributed by the defendants. Plaintiff argues on appeal that there is no general rule insulating medical providers from liability to nonpatient third parties for their professional negligence. Defendants responded that physicians and pharmacists only owe a duty to their patients except for limited circumstances. The Court reasoned that this case invokes a status, relationship, or particular standard from Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, 303 Or 1, 17 (1987). “[W]hen the typical foreseeability framework articulated in Fazzolari applies – when the plaintiff alleges the defendant’s conduct created the risk to a universally protected interest like the interest in avoiding physical harm – that is the end of the matter, and there is no need to consider the Tomlinson factors.” The Court determined this case looks to “whether the defendant’s conduct unreasonably created a foreseeable risk of harm to a protected interest of the plaintiff such that the defendant may be held liable for that conduct.” The Court found that the Tomlinson and Zavalas cases do not conflict. The Court concluded the holding in Tomlinson to mean that a physician’s duty to protect a patient extends beyond the risks created by the physician and may extend to third-parties in certain circumstances, but where only economic or emotional damages are sought, foreseeability alone is not enough. The Court emphasized the defendants allegedly breached their statutory standards of care to their patient. The Court held Zavalas is the controlling case for this matter, the trial court erred in dismissing the negligence claims, and should the case go to trial it is for a jury to determine whether each defendant’s conduct unreasonably created a foreseeable risk of Witt’s conduct and the type of harm that resulted. Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search


Back to Top