Garrison v. Deschutes County
2002 Ore. LEXIS 390, 48 P.3d 807, 334 Or. 264 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public body's decision is protected by discretionary function immunity under the Oregon Tort Claims Act when it is the result of a policy choice that involves weighing competing costs, benefits, and risks, and is made by officials with delegated authority to make such judgments.
Facts:
- Deschutes County owned and operated the Fryrear transfer station, which featured a raised concrete slab with a 14.5-foot drop to a lower slab.
- The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners delegated design and operation decisions for the station to Larry Rice, the public works director, and Al Driver, the director of solid waste operations.
- Rice and Driver considered installing a fence or other barrier at the edge of the upper slab but ultimately rejected the idea, concluding it would create new safety hazards (e.g., entangled refuse, slip hazards), make use more difficult, and increase operating costs.
- They decided the safest design included a seven-inch railroad tie at the edge of the slab to serve as a vehicle barrier, but no other protective barriers for people.
- Gary Garrison and his wife had visited the transfer station before and were aware of the significant drop from the upper to the lower slab.
- Garrison backed his pickup truck to the railroad tie barrier to unload refuse.
- After emptying the refuse, Garrison attempted to swing out of the back of his pickup onto the upper slab, but he fell to the lower slab, suffering severe injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Gary and Heather Garrison sued Deschutes County in an Oregon state trial court (circuit court) for negligence.
- The county moved for summary judgment, arguing it was protected by discretionary function immunity under the Oregon Tort Claims Act.
- The trial court granted the county's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.
- The Garrisons, as appellants, appealed the decision to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Deschutes County, the appellee.
- The Garrisons, as petitioners, petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court for review, which the court granted.
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 discretionary function immunity under the Oregon Tort Claims Act protect a county's decision not to install safety barriers at a refuse transfer station, when that decision resulted from a deliberate policy choice weighing safety, cost, and usability by officials with delegated authority?
Opinions:
Majority - Gillette, J.
Yes. A county's decision not to install barriers is a discretionary function immune from liability when it is based on a policy judgment. The undisputed evidence shows that county officials, with delegated authority, considered various design options and weighed competing factors such as public safety, cost, and usability. They concluded that adding a barrier would create other hazards and make the facility less safe overall. This decision-making process represents exactly the type of policy choice that discretionary immunity is designed to protect, regardless of whether the decision was ultimately negligent. Furthermore, the failure-to-warn claim fails because the danger was open and obvious, and the plaintiffs admitted they were fully aware of the risk, meaning the absence of a warning was not the cause of the injury.
Dissenting - Durham, J.
No. The county had a non-discretionary common law duty to make its premises reasonably safe for invitees, which includes protecting them from known, dangerous conditions. While the choice of means to satisfy this duty may be discretionary, the choice to do nothing at all to protect against the specific risk of people falling is not. The county addressed the risk of vehicles falling by installing a railroad tie but took no precautions for the risk of people falling. A public body does not have the discretion to simply ignore a legally imposed duty of care, even if it considers policy factors in its decision to do so.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the strength of discretionary function immunity in Oregon, shielding public bodies from tort liability for decisions involving policy judgment. The court emphasizes that the focus is on the nature of the decision-making process, not the correctness of the outcome. As long as officials can demonstrate they weighed competing policy considerations (safety, cost, efficiency), their choice is protected, even if it leads to injury. This ruling makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to sue government entities for allegedly negligent design or planning, forcing them to prove either that no policy judgment was made or that the officials acted outside their delegated authority.
