Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 654.330 (2026)

Fellow servant negligence as defense

✓ current as of May 2026

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

654.330 Fellow servant negligence as defense. In all actions brought to recover from an employer for injuries suffered by an employee, the negligence of a fellow servant shall not be a defense where the injury was caused or contributed to by any of the following causes:

(1) Any defect in the structure, materials, works, plant or machinery of which the employer or the agent of the employer could have had knowledge by the exercise of ordinary care.

(2) The neglect of any person engaged as superintendent, manager, foreman or other person in charge or control of the works, plant, machinery or appliances.

(3) The incompetence or negligence of any person in charge of, or directing the particular work in which the employee was engaged at the time of the injury or death.

(4) The incompetence or negligence of any person to whose orders the employee was bound to conform and did conform and by reason of having conformed thereto the injury or death resulted.

(5) The act of any fellow servant done in obedience to the rules, instructions or orders given by the employer or any other person who has authority to direct the doing of said act.

654.335 [Repealed by 2001 c.865 §19]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1958–1964 · leading case: Skeeters v. Skeeters, 391 P.2d 386 (Or. 1964).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Skeeters v. Skeeters, 391 P.2d 386 (Or. 1964). · cites it 2× “[2] The Employers' Liability Law exacts a higher degree of care from employers than does the common law. It requires measures for the safety of employees that are more stringent than the common law and at the same time deprives employers of some defenses available at common law.”

Howard v. Foster & Kleiser Co., 342 P.2d 780 (Or. 1958). “If recovery cannot be had in this case under the Employers’ Liability Law, it follows that none is available under the common-law rule of due care. Recovery is prevented in this case under the common-law rule because it was the plaintiff’s duty, as he admitted, to have inspected…”

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.