Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Crandall V. State topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MLAC hears Supreme Court update in Crandall v. State; committee seeks follow up on Tort Claims Act implications
Summary
Lauren Eldridge briefed MLAC on Crandall v. State, a Supreme Court decision about the Oregon Tort Claims Act and whether immunity for state employees impedes constitutional remedies; the court remanded the case, and MLAC asked staff to research contractor applicability and implications.
Lauren Eldridge briefed the committee on Crandall v. State, a recent Oregon Supreme Court decision concerning the Oregon Tort Claims Act and how it interacts with workers' compensation remedies. The central question before the court was whether the Act's immunity for state employees violates the remedies clause of the Oregon Constitution when the immune party is a negligent third party.
Eldridge said the Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court and emphasized that the decision pertains to whether plaintiffs may pursue negligence actions when the Tort Claims Act would otherwise bar suits; it does not determine whether such negligence claims will ultimately succeed. Co‑chair Patrick Priest asked whether the Tort Claims Act applies to contractors with public employers; Eldridge said she will investigate and provide a follow‑up. MLAC members requested more information on what harms (for example, pain and suffering) are not available under workers' compensation and how that limitation affects potential remedies under the Tort Claims Act.
The briefing highlighted a potential gap between remedies available under workers' compensation and civil negligence claims for public‑employee contexts; MLAC asked staff to return with clarifications.
