Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.156 (2026)

Intentional injuries

✓ current as of May 2026

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

656.156 Intentional injuries. (1) If injury or death results to a worker from the deliberate intention of the worker to produce such injury or death, neither the worker nor the widow, widower, child or dependent of the worker shall receive any payment whatsoever under this chapter.

(2) If injury or death results to a worker from the deliberate intention of the employer of the worker to produce such injury or death, the worker, the widow, widower, child or dependent of the worker may take under this chapter, and also have cause for action against the employer, as if such statutes had not been passed, for damages over the amount payable under those statutes. [Amended by 1965 c.285 §20]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 48 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1964–2026 · leading case: Kilminster v. Day Mgmt. Corp., 919 P.2d 474 (Or. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kilminster v. Day Mgmt. Corp., 919 P.2d 474 (Or. 1996). · cites it 70× “156(2), in the circumstances. The trial court held that plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim, however.”

Bundy v. Nustar GP, LLC, 373 P.3d 1141 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 22× “With respect to the first of those rulings, plaintiff argues that the court erred in granting defendants’ dismissal motion because he stated a claim for deliberate intention to injure against defendant NuStar GP LLC, under ORS 656.156(2). With respect to the second ruling,…”

Davis v. United States Employers Council, Inc., 934 P.2d 1142 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 46× “Clearly, a profit motive and a wish to injure can coexistthe two are not necessarily mutually exclusive and, if they do, ORS 656.156 applies. We fully appreciate that, in some cases, the "wish to injure" formulation may produce seemingly cold-blooded results.”

Hanson v. Versarail Sys., Inc., 28 P.3d 626 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 25× “In response to the employer’s argument that its manager did not act with the requisite intent to come within the exception, we held that “a jury reasonably could infer that the manager wished to inflict more emotional distress on plaintiff, knowing that she was suffering severe…”

Bakker v. Baza'r, Inc., 551 P.2d 1269 (Or. 1976). · cites it 14× “Plaintiff asserts that her remedies are not restricted by the Workmen's Compensation Law because this case falls within the statutory exception appearing in ORS 656.156(2). That statute provides: "(2) If injury or death results to a workman from the deliberate intention of his…”

Olsen v. Deschutes Cnty., 127 P.3d 655 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 10× “Plaintiffs respond that there is evidence that brings plaintiffs' claims under ORS 656.156(2). [14] That statute provides: "If injury or death results to a worker from the deliberate intention of the employer of the worker to produce such injury or death, the worker * * * may…”

Behurst v. Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc., 203 P.3d 207 (Or. 2009). · cites it 39× “The federal district court now asks this court to determine whether ORS 656.156(2) allows the personal representative of a deceased worker to bring an action for intentional wrongful death against the worker’s employer, when the only beneficiaries of the claim are the worker’s…”

Lusk v. Monaco Motor Homes, Inc., 775 P.2d 891 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 14× “018 and ORS 656.156 apply, whether plaintiff suffered an injury or an occupational disease.”

McLean v. Pine Eagle Sch. Dist., No. 61, 194 F. Supp. 3d 1102 (D. Or. 2016). · cites it 7× “156 (2), which permits an employee to bring an action against her employer for an injury that is covered by workers’ compensation law if the injury results “from the deliberate intention of the employer of the worker to produce such injury”; and (2) Or.”

MacCrone v. Edwards Ctr., Inc., 980 P.2d 1156 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 14× “156 [2] require that *1161 plaintiff must prove that defendant, as plaintiff's employer, had the deliberate intent to injure her in order to avoid the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law and that proof of negligence, gross negligence, recklessness or conscious…”

Savilla v. Speedway Superamerica, LLC, 639 S.E.2d 850 (W. Va. 2006). · cites it 10× “2d at 480 (quoting Or.Rev.Stat. § 656.156(2)) (emphasis added).”

Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Prot. Dist., 729 P.2d 743 (Cal. 1987). · cites it 2× “) [4] The majority argue that section 4553 creates a "substantial deterrent" to intentional employer misconduct because an employer cannot insure against such liability. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 160-161.”

Show all 48 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.156(1) — 11 cases

Lusk v. Monaco Motor Homes, Inc., 775 P.2d 891 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). “018 and ORS 656.156 apply, whether plaintiff suffered an injury or an occupational disease.”

Clark v. U. S. Plywood, 605 P.2d 265 (Or. 1980).

Phil A. Livesley Co. v. Russ, 672 P.2d 337 (Or. 1983).

Sullivan v. Banister Pipeline AM, 739 P.2d 597 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).

Youngren v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 597 P.2d 1302 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 656.156(2) — 32 cases

Kilminster v. Day Mgmt. Corp., 919 P.2d 474 (Or. 1996). “156(2), in the circumstances. The trial court held that plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim, however.”

Bundy v. Nustar GP, LLC, 373 P.3d 1141 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “With respect to the first of those rulings, plaintiff argues that the court erred in granting defendants’ dismissal motion because he stated a claim for deliberate intention to injure against defendant NuStar GP LLC, under ORS 656.156(2). With respect to the second ruling,…”

Davis v. United States Employers Council, Inc., 934 P.2d 1142 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “Clearly, a profit motive and a wish to injure can coexistthe two are not necessarily mutually exclusive and, if they do, ORS 656.156 applies. We fully appreciate that, in some cases, the "wish to injure" formulation may produce seemingly cold-blooded results.”

Hanson v. Versarail Sys., Inc., 28 P.3d 626 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “In response to the employer’s argument that its manager did not act with the requisite intent to come within the exception, we held that “a jury reasonably could infer that the manager wished to inflict more emotional distress on plaintiff, knowing that she was suffering severe…”

Bakker v. Baza'r, Inc., 551 P.2d 1269 (Or. 1976). “Plaintiff asserts that her remedies are not restricted by the Workmen's Compensation Law because this case falls within the statutory exception appearing in ORS 656.156(2). That statute provides: "(2) If injury or death results to a workman from the deliberate intention of his…”

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.