Fazzolari v. Portland School District No. 1J
303 Or. 1, 734 P.2d 1326 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Unless a specific status, relationship, or law defines or limits a duty, liability for harm depends on whether the defendant's conduct unreasonably created a foreseeable risk to a protected interest of the kind of harm that befell the plaintiff.
Facts:
- Tammy Fazzolari, a 15-year-old student, was dropped off at her high school at approximately 6:50 a.m. on May 21, 1982.
- It was common for students and teachers to arrive at the school well before classes began, and custodians routinely opened the building before 7:00 a.m.
- As Fazzolari was about to enter the school building, an unknown assailant grabbed her from behind.
- The assailant dragged her to nearby bushes on the school grounds, where he beat and raped her.
- Fifteen days prior to the attack on Fazzolari, another woman had been sexually assaulted on the same school grounds.
Procedural Posture:
- Fazzolari sued the Portland School District No. 1J for negligence in the circuit court (trial court).
- At the close of Fazzolari's evidence at trial, the court granted the school district's motion for a directed verdict.
- Fazzolari, as appellant, appealed the resulting judgment to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.
- The school district, as petitioner, sought review from the Supreme Court of Oregon, which granted the petition.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant whose conduct unreasonably creates a foreseeable risk of harm have a legal duty to protect a plaintiff from that harm, even if the harm is directly caused by the criminal act of a third party?
Opinions:
Majority - Linde, J.
Yes. Liability for harm properly depends on whether a defendant's conduct unreasonably created a foreseeable risk to a protected interest of the kind of harm that befell the plaintiff. The court reframed Oregon's negligence analysis, moving the central inquiry from the legal concept of 'duty' to the factual question of 'foreseeability.' The court explained that 'no-duty' is a conclusory label applied to limit liability as a matter of law, rather than an initial element of a negligence claim. A special relationship, such as that between a school and its students, imposes an obligation to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable risks, including the criminal acts of third parties. Given the prior sexual assault on school grounds, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the attack on Fazzolari was a foreseeable risk, making it improper to dismiss the case as a matter of law. The questions of whether the risk was foreseeable and whether the school's lack of precautions was unreasonable should be decided by a jury.
Analysis:
This case significantly shifted Oregon negligence law by de-emphasizing the traditional 'duty' element as a threshold legal question for the court. It established foreseeability of harm as the primary focus, turning many questions of liability that were previously decided by judges as a matter of 'no duty' into questions of fact for the jury. This approach broadens the potential for liability, especially in cases involving harm caused by third parties, and makes it more difficult for defendants to obtain early dismissal. The decision reinforces the principle that liability should follow from the creation of unreasonable, foreseeable risks, regardless of their source.
