Sloan v. Providence Health System-Oregon

"Even when a special relationship is the basis for the duty of care owed by one person to another . . . if the special relationship does not prescribe a particular scope of duty, then ‘common law principles of reasonable care and foreseeability of harm are relevant.’” Oregon Steel Mills, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, LLP, 336 Or 329, 342, 83 P3d 322 (2004).

Petitioner sought review to determine whether the trial court erred in refusing to give the Liability for Subsequent Conduct Instruction under Oregon’s interpretation of UCJI 20.07. Petitioner first argues the Court of Appeals wrongly applied foreseeability principles of Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, 303 Or 1 734 P2d 1326 (1987); arguing Oregon Courts do not apply foreseeability principles to a case “based on a special relationship”. Next, Petitioner argued the Court of Appeals incorrectly found the proposed instruction to be a proper statement of law. "Even when a special relationship is the basis for the duty of care owed by one person to another . . . if the special relationship does not prescribe a particular scope of duty, then ‘common law principles of reasonable care and foreseeability of harm are relevant.’” Oregon Steel Mills, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, LLP, 336 Or 329, 342, 83 P3d 322 (2004). The Court concluded that the Court of Appeals did not err in applying foreseeability principles because the proposed instructions set forth a correct statement of law, “as long as the subsequent conduct and risk of additional injury were reasonably foreseeable.” 

The circuit court judgment in part for defendant Apogee is reversed and remanded for a new trial; otherwise affirmed.