Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 430.401 (2026)

Liability of certain persons and facilities

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

430.401 Liability of certain persons and facilities. A police officer, person acting under the authority of a mobile crisis intervention team as defined in ORS 430.626, physician, naturopathic physician, physician associate, nurse practitioner, judge, treatment facility, treatment facility staff member or sobering facility, or the staff of the sobering facility, may not be held criminally or civilly liable for actions pursuant to ORS 430.315, 430.335, 430.397 to 430.401 and 430.402 provided the actions are in good faith, on probable cause and without malice. [Formerly 426.470; 2014 c.45 §47; 2015 c.730 §4; 2017 c.356 §55; 2024 c.70 §80a; 2024 c.73 §72]

Note: See note under 430.397.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Scovill v. City of Astoria, 921 P.2d 1312 (Or. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Scovill v. City of Astoria, 921 P.2d 1312 (Or. 1996). “470 (1989), now numbered ORS 430.401, enacted simultaneously with ORS 426.”

E. J. T. v. Jefferson Cnty., 518 P.3d 568 (Or. 2022). “470 (1989), renumbered as ORS 430.401 (1995) (emphasis omitted)). This court construed the immunity provision as suggesting that the legislature “contemplated” that a failure to perform the statutory duty could “give rise to a potential liability in tort in circumstances in…”

Mesch v. Unity Ctr. for Behavioral Health, 349 Or. App. 463 (Or. Ct. App. 2026). “Unity Center for Behavioral Health director shall return the person to the place where the per- son was taken into custody * * *.”

Jonell Grainger v. John Ensley (9th Cir. 2022). “The county defendants further argue that they are immune from any civil 2 liability for their actions under Or. Rev. Stat. § 430.401 (1) (2021) because the officers acted in good faith, without malice, and in accordance with § 430.”

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.