276.598
Carpools or vanpools; rules.
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 283.395, the Oregon Department of
Administrative Services may establish carpool or vanpool programs in which
state-owned vehicles are used by state employees as commute vehicles, provided
that a daily, weekly or monthly fee is charged that is adequate to reimburse
the state for the cost of providing such vehicles for such purposes.
(2) The
department shall prescribe rules that:
(a) Define the
use of state-owned motor vehicles that constitutes use in the conduct of state
business and distinguish such use from misappropriation for private use;
(b) Identify
procedures for determining and collecting the appropriate charges from
employees for the use of commute vehicles; and
(c) Identify
procedures to be used in the operation of state-owned vehicles as commute
vehicles in the state carpool or vanpool programs authorized in subsection (1)
of this section.
(3) The
department may authorize other state agencies to use state-owned vehicles under
the control of such agencies for the purposes set forth in subsection (1) of
this section. [1977 c.598 §25b; 1981 c.490 §5; 2023 c.9 §16]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
23
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case:
Krieger v. Just, 876 P.2d 754 (Or. 1994).
Krieger v. Just, 876 P.2d 754 (Or. 1994).
· cites it 3× “300, every public body is subject to action or suit for its torts and those of its officers, employes and agents acting within the scope of their employment or duties, whether arising out of a governmental or proprietary function or while operating a motor vehicle in a…”
Nearing v. Weaver, 670 P.2d 137 (Or. 1983).
· cites it 2× “265(3) (1979): "(3) Every public body and its officers, employes and agents acting within the scope of their employment or duties, or while operating a motor vehicle in a ridesharing arrangement authorized under ORS 276.598, are immune from liability for: ".”
Garrison v. Deschutes Cnty., 48 P.3d 807 (Or. 2002).
· cites it 2× “265(3)(c): "Every public body and its officers, employees and agents acting within the scope of their employment or duties, or while operating a motor vehicle in a ridesharing arrangement authorized under ORS 276.598, are immune from liability for: "* * * * * "(c) Any claim…”
Jensen v. Whitlow, 51 P.3d 599 (Or. 2002).
“300, every public body is subject to action or suit for its torts and those of its officers, employees and agents acting within the scope of their employment or duties, whether arising out of a governmental or proprietary function or while operating a motor vehicle in a…”
Storm v. McClung, 47 P.3d 476 (Or. 2002).
“265(3)(a) provides, in part: “Every public body and its officers, employees and agents acting within the scope of their employment or duties, or while operating a motor vehicle in a ridesharing arrangement authorized under ORS 276.598, are immune from liability for: “Any claim…”
Mark v. State, Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, 974 P.2d 716 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “300, every public body is subject to action or suit for its torts and those of its officers, employees and agents acting within the scope of their employment or duties, whether arising out of a governmental or proprietary function or while operating a motor vehicle in a…”
Hughes v. Wilson, 199 P.3d 305 (Or. 2008).
“300, every public body is subject to action or suit for its torts and those of its officers, employees and agents acting within the scope of their employment or duties, whether arising out of a governmental or proprietary function or while operating a motor vehicle in a…”
Hawkins v. City of La Grande, 843 P.2d 400 (Or. 1992).
“300, every public body is subject to action or suit for its torts and those of its officers, employees and agents acting within the scope of their employment or duties, whether arising out of a governmental or proprietary function or while operating a motor vehicle in a…”
Rogers v. Saylor, 746 P.2d 718 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “300, every public body is liable for its torts and those of its officers, employes and agents acting within the scope of their employment or duties, whether arising out of a governmental or proprietary function or while operating a motor vehicle in a ridesharing arrangement…”
Millspaugh v. Port of Portland, 671 P.2d 743 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “265(3)(a): "(3) Every public body and its officers, employes and agents acting within the scope of their employment or duties, or while operating a motor vehicle in a ridesharing arrangement authorized under ORS 276.598, are immune from liability for: "(a) Any claim for injury…”
City of Salem v. Salisbury, 5 P.3d 1131 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
““(3) When issued on state-owned vehicles furnished for public use including, but not limited to, use authorized under ORS 276.598, such insurance shall include uninsured motorist coverage and personal injury protection benefits and shall provide at least the minimum coverages…”
Sager v. City of Portland, 684 P.2d 600 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
“265 provides in relevant part: “(3) Every public body and its officers, employes and agents acting within the scope of their employment or duties, or while operating a motor vehicle in a ridesharing arrangement authorized under ORS 276.598, are immune from liability for: $ * * *…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.