pleading which asserts claim in Oregon

2023However, to reach that ques- tion of fact, plaintiffs’ complaint must allege ultimate facts that, if true, are “sufficient to establish” that the individual defendants’ acts were outside the scope of their employment and “resulted in the acts that caused injury to plaintiff.” Fearing, 328 Or at 374 ; see also ORCP 18 A (“A pleading which asserts a claim for relief * * * shall contain * * * [a] Cite as 328 Or App 391 (2023) 421 plain and concise statement of the ultimate facts consti- tuting a claim for relief without unnecessary repetition.”).

2023However, to reach that ques- tion of fact, plaintiffs’ complaint must allege ultimate facts that, if true, are “sufficient to establish” that the individual defendants’ acts were outside the scope of their employment and “resulted in the acts that caused injury to plaintiff.” Fearing, 328 Or at 374 ; see also ORCP 18 A (“A pleading which asserts a claim for relief * * * shall contain * * * [a] Cite as 328 Or App 391 (2023) 421 plain and concise statement of the ultimate facts consti- tuting a claim for relief without unnecessary repetition.”).

1993ORCP 18 A provides: "A pleading which asserts a claim for relief * * * shall contain: "A. A plain and concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting a claim for relief without unnecessary repetition." Interpreting ORCP 18 A, Davis v. Tyee Industries, Inc., 295 Or. 467, 479 , 668 P.2d 1186 (1983), held: "[W]hatever the theory of recovery, facts must be alleged which, if proved, will establish the right to recover.

1993ORCP 18 A provides: "A pleading which asserts a claim for relief * * * shall contain: "A. A plain and concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting a claim for relief without unnecessary repetition." Interpreting ORCP 18 A, Davis v. Tyee Industries, Inc., 295 Or. 467, 479 , 668 P.2d 1186 (1983), held: "[W]hatever the theory of recovery, facts must be alleged which, if proved, will establish the right to recover.

1986Defendant asserts that because plaintiff did not assert a claim under ORS 743.783, plaintiff cannot now assert that the trial court should be reversed on the basis of that statute. 4 The requirements for pleading a claim are set out in ORCP 18, which provides: “A pleading which asserts a claim for relief, whether an *70 original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third party claim shall contain “A. A plain and concise statement of ultimate facts constituting a claim for relief without unnecessary repetition.” In Davis v. Tyee Industries, Inc., 295 Or 467, 479 , 668 P2d 1186 (1983), we held t

1986Defendant asserts that because plaintiff did not assert a claim under ORS 743.783, plaintiff cannot now assert that the trial court should be reversed on the basis of that statute. 4 The requirements for pleading a claim are set out in ORCP 18, which provides: “A pleading which asserts a claim for relief, whether an *70 original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third party claim shall contain “A. A plain and concise statement of ultimate facts constituting a claim for relief without unnecessary repetition.” In Davis v. Tyee Industries, Inc., 295 Or 467, 479 , 668 P2d 1186 (1983), we held t

1985The Council on Court Procedures, Staff Comment to Rule 18 is in part as follows: “The Council decided to retain fact pleading as opposed to notice pleading, i.e., to retain a requirement of fairly specific description of facts as opposed to adopting the less specific fact description allowable in federal courts. * * * The necessity of pleading ultimate facts retains the present Oregon requirements of pleadings facts at a fairly specific level. * * See Welch v. Bancorp Managment Services, 296 Or 208, 221 , 675 P2d 172 (1983).

1985The Council on Court Procedures, Staff Comment to Rule 18 is in part as follows: “The Council decided to retain fact pleading as opposed to notice pleading, i.e., to retain a requirement of fairly specific description of facts as opposed to adopting the less specific fact description allowable in federal courts. * * * The necessity of pleading ultimate facts retains the present Oregon requirements of pleadings facts at a fairly specific level. * * See Welch v. Bancorp Managment Services, 296 Or 208, 221 , 675 P2d 172 (1983).

1985The Council on Court Procedures, Staff Comment to Rule 18 is in part as follows: "The Council decided to retain fact pleading as opposed to notice pleading, i.e., to retain a requirement of fairly specific description of facts as opposed to adopting the less specific fact description allowable in federal courts. * * * The necessity of pleading ultimate facts retains the present Oregon requirements of pleadings facts at a fairly specific level. * *." See Welch v. Bancorp Management Services, 296 Or. 208, 221 , 675 P.2d 172 (1983). [5] This court did consider Restatement (Second) of Property § 1

1985The Council on Court Procedures, Staff Comment to Rule 18 is in part as follows: "The Council decided to retain fact pleading as opposed to notice pleading, i.e., to retain a requirement of fairly specific description of facts as opposed to adopting the less specific fact description allowable in federal courts. * * * The necessity of pleading ultimate facts retains the present Oregon requirements of pleadings facts at a fairly specific level. * *." See Welch v. Bancorp Management Services, 296 Or. 208, 221 , 675 P.2d 172 (1983). [5] This court did consider Restatement (Second) of Property § 1