Oregon Revised Statutes
Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.315 (2026)
Persons in charge of work to see that ORS 654.305 to 654.336 are complied with
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ORSoregonlegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
654.315 Persons in charge of work to see that ORS 654.305 to 654.336 are complied with. The owners, contractors, subcontractors, foremen, architects or other persons having charge of the particular work, shall see that the requirements of ORS 654.305 to 654.336 are complied with.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1958–2021 · leading case: Miller v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., 662 P.2d 718 (Or. 1983).
Miller v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., 662 P.2d 718 (Or. 1983). “Ill APPLICATION OF THE VICE-PRINCIPAL RULE The vice-principal rule derives from ORS 654.315, which states: “The owners, contractors, subcontractors, foremen, architects or other persons having charge of the particular work, shall see that the requirements of ORS 654.”
Skeeters v. Skeeters, 391 P.2d 386 (Or. 1964). “In this case the record contains no evidence showing that the plaintiff had authority to supervise or control or that he was vested with discretion as to how things should be done.”
Howard v. Foster & Kleiser Co., 342 P.2d 780 (Or. 1958). “ORS 654.315: “The owners, contractors, subcontractors, foremen, architects or other persons having charge of the particular work, shall see that the requirements of ORS 654.”
Fields v. Fields, 326 P.2d 451 (Or. 1958). “There is no evidence tending to prove that plaintiff owed his father any duty to inspect the spray rig and to make certain that it complied with the employer’s liability act. Leonard was not employed for that purpose nor was there any evidence that he had been assigned any such…”
Cain v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc., 817 F. Supp. 2d 1251 (D. Or. 2011). “ridge, viaduct or other structure, or in the erection or operation of any machinery, or in the manufacture, transmission and use of electricity, or in the manufacture or use of any dangerous appliance or substance, shall see that all places of employment are in compliance with…”
Thomas v. Foglio, 358 P.2d 1066 (Or. 1961). “" (Italics supplied) This statute which is generally referred to as the "and generally" clause, and upon which plaintiff must ground his right to seek a recovery, reads as follows: "Generally, all owners, contractors or subcontractors and other persons having charge of, or…”
Miller v. Georgia-Pac. Corp., 637 P.2d 1354 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “Viewing the evidence most favorably to plaintiff, we conclude that a reasonable person could find that Consolidated controlled the moving of the blade in pursuit of a common enterprise (inspection and ultimate repair of thé broken blade) and that movement of a 28-foot cutting…”
Bartley v. Doherty, 357 P.2d 521 (Or. 1960). “on the ground that the plaintiff was barred in his action by the Foreman Defense Rule, ORS 654.315." ORS 654.315 provides as follows: "The owners, contractors, subcontractors, foremen, architects or other persons having charge of the particular work, shall see that the…”
Helms v. Halton Tractor Co., 676 P.2d 347 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “Its Board of Directors set the policy for the operation of the forklifts, and their day-to-day use was directed by Willamette Valley’s show chairman or move-in, move-out committee. Willamette Valley conceded on oral argument that it was within its authority to preclude…”
Yeatts v. Polygon Nw. Co., 496 P.3d 1060 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “That statute, ORS 654.315, provides: “The owners, contractors, subcontractors, foremen, archi- tects or other persons having charge of the particular work, shall see that the requirements of ORS 654.”
Galer v. Weyerhaeuser Timber Co., 344 P.2d 544 (Or. 1959). “305, being a part of the employer’s liability law which the complaint mentions, says: “Generally, all owners * * * and other persons having charge of, or responsible for, any work involving a risk or danger to the employes or the public, shall use every device, care and caution…”
Kauffman v. L. D. Mattson, Inc., 657 P.2d 720 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). “305; ORS 654.315. In addition to their application in the employer-employe context, the ELA and the vice-principal defense are also applicable in some situations where the defendant is an “indirect employer” of the plaintiff.”
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.