634.172
Procedure for making liability claim against landowner or pesticide operator;
investigation of report of loss; claim procedure not waiver of governmental
immunity. (1) No
action against a landowner, person for whom the pesticide was applied or
pesticide operator arising out of the use or application of any pesticide shall
be commenced unless, within 60 days from the occurrence of the loss, within 60
days from the date the loss is discovered, or, if the loss is alleged to have
occurred out of damage to growing crops, before the time when 50 percent of the
crop is harvested, the person commencing the action:
(a) Files a
report of the alleged loss with the State Department of Agriculture;
(b) Mails or
personally delivers to the landowner or pesticide operator who is allegedly
responsible for the loss a true copy of the report provided for under paragraph
(a) of this subsection; and
(c) Mails or
personally delivers to the person for whom the pesticide was applied a true
copy of the report required under paragraph (a) of this subsection if that
person is not the person commencing the action.
(2) Any person
who claims to have sustained any loss arising out of the use or application of
any pesticide by any state agency, county or municipality may file a report of
loss with the department, and mail or personally deliver a true copy of such
report of loss to the state agency, county or municipality allegedly
responsible, within the time provided in subsection (1) of this section.
(3) Upon
receiving a report of loss as provided by this section:
(a) The
department may investigate, examine and determine the extent and nature of the
damage alleged to have been caused to property or crops. The department shall
not determine the source of the damage, the person who may have caused the
damage or the financial extent of the loss or damage. The department shall
prepare and file in its office a report of the investigation, examination and
determination. Copies of the report made by the department may be given upon
request to persons who are financially interested in the matter.
(b) The
department at the request of, and without cost to, any persons financially
interested in the matter may undertake to mediate an equitable settlement of
the controversy.
(4) Upon
receiving a request from any person, other than a person who may file a report
of loss as provided by subsection (1) or (2) of this section, the department
may investigate, examine and determine the extent and nature of damage alleged
to have been caused to property or crops arising out of the use or application
of any pesticide by any other person, provided that the person making such
request reimburses the department for its work. The department shall not
determine the source of the damage, the person who may have caused the damage
or the financial extent of the loss or damage. The department shall prepare and
file in its office a report of the investigation, examination and
determination. Copies of the report made by the department may be given upon
request to persons who are financially interested in the matter.
(5) Nothing in
this section shall be construed as a waiver by the State of Oregon or any state
agency, county or municipality of any immunity against suit that otherwise may
exist.
(6)
Notwithstanding ORS 634.006, as used in this section, “landowner” includes any
person shown by records of the county to be the owner of land or having such
land under contract for purchase. [1973 c.341 §23; 1991 c.351 §1; 1995 c.96 §2;
2015 c.833 §13]
PROTECTED AND RESTRICTED
AREAS
Notes of Decisions
Bella v. Aurora Air, Inc., 566 P.2d 489 (Or. 1977).
· cites it 11× “Later he filed with the State Department of Agriculture a report of the loss, see ORS 634.172, which was dated August 15 and asserted discovery of the damage on June 15; but the report was not actually mailed before August 21 and received by the department on August 22.”
Holbrook v. Precision Helicopters, Inc., 986 P.2d 646 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 16× “272(1) and ORS 634.172(1). After receiving a report of loss, the ODA “may investigate, examine and determine the extent and nature of the damage alleged to have been caused to property or crops.”
Malaer v. Flying Lion, Inc., 670 P.2d 214 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 12× “The issues on appeal concern the notice provisions in ORS 634.172. Defendants have the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Dickinson Air Serv., Inc. v. Kadrmas, 397 N.W.2d 55 (N.D. 1986).
· cites it 2× “1985); Or.Rev.Stat. § 634.172 (1985). Because of this harsh result, many of the states that preclude civil actions if the claimant fails to comply with the notice-of-claim requirement have judicially adopted "doctrines" which act to undermine the statutory limitations provided…”
Vierra v. Clackamas Cnty., 772 P.2d 1346 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 3× “006(13), and that plaintiffs were therefore required to, and did not, comply with the “report of loss” requirements of ORS 634.172 that are prerequisite to bringing an action against a pesticide operator.”
Vierra v. Clackamas Cnty., 785 P.2d 757 (Or. 1990).
· cites it 2× “006(13), and that plaintiffs were therefore required to, and did not, comply with the “report of loss” requirements of ORS 634.172 that are a prerequisite to bringing an action against a pesticide operator.”
Knight v. Reforestation Servs., Inc., 643 P.2d 880 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiffs action was dismissed by the trial court on the ground of failure to comply with ORS 634.172(1). 2 Plaintiff admits that the statute was correctly applied to her, but she urges that its very brief (60 day) notice period unconstitutionally discriminates against a class…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 634.172(1) — 6 cases
Bella v. Aurora Air, Inc., 566 P.2d 489 (Or. 1977).
“Later he filed with the State Department of Agriculture a report of the loss, see ORS 634.172, which was dated August 15 and asserted discovery of the damage on June 15; but the report was not actually mailed before August 21 and received by the department on August 22.”
Malaer v. Flying Lion, Inc., 670 P.2d 214 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
“The issues on appeal concern the notice provisions in ORS 634.172. Defendants have the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Holbrook v. Precision Helicopters, Inc., 986 P.2d 646 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“272(1) and ORS 634.172(1). After receiving a report of loss, the ODA “may investigate, examine and determine the extent and nature of the damage alleged to have been caused to property or crops.”
Vierra v. Clackamas Cnty., 785 P.2d 757 (Or. 1990).
“006(13), and that plaintiffs were therefore required to, and did not, comply with the “report of loss” requirements of ORS 634.172 that are a prerequisite to bringing an action against a pesticide operator.”
Vierra v. Clackamas Cnty., 772 P.2d 1346 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
“006(13), and that plaintiffs were therefore required to, and did not, comply with the “report of loss” requirements of ORS 634.172 that are prerequisite to bringing an action against a pesticide operator.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 634.172(2) — 1 case
Bella v. Aurora Air, Inc., 566 P.2d 489 (Or. 1977).
“Later he filed with the State Department of Agriculture a report of the loss, see ORS 634.172, which was dated August 15 and asserted discovery of the damage on June 15; but the report was not actually mailed before August 21 and received by the department on August 22.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 634.172(3) — 1 case
Holbrook v. Precision Helicopters, Inc., 986 P.2d 646 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“272(1) and ORS 634.172(1). After receiving a report of loss, the ODA “may investigate, examine and determine the extent and nature of the damage alleged to have been caused to property or crops.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 634.172(3)(a) — 2 cases
Holbrook v. Precision Helicopters, Inc., 986 P.2d 646 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“272(1) and ORS 634.172(1). After receiving a report of loss, the ODA “may investigate, examine and determine the extent and nature of the damage alleged to have been caused to property or crops.”
Malaer v. Flying Lion, Inc., 670 P.2d 214 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
“The issues on appeal concern the notice provisions in ORS 634.172. Defendants have the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
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.