811.705
Failure to perform duties of driver to injured persons; penalty. (1) A driver of a vehicle who
knows or has reason to believe that the driver’s vehicle was involved in a
collision commits the offense of failure to perform the duties of a driver to
injured persons if the driver’s vehicle has been in a collision that results in
injury or death to a person and the driver does not perform all of the
following duties:
(a) Immediately
stop the driver’s vehicle at the scene of the collision or as close to the scene
of the collision as possible and reasonably investigate what the driver’s
vehicle struck. Every stop required under this paragraph should be made without
obstructing traffic more than is necessary.
(b) Remain at the
scene of the collision until the driver has fulfilled all of the requirements
under this subsection.
(c) Give to the
other driver or a surviving passenger or any person not a passenger who is
injured as a result of the collision:
(A) The driver’s
name and address, the name and address of the owner of the driver’s vehicle and
the name and address of any other occupants of the driver’s vehicle; and
(B) If the driver’s
vehicle is a motor vehicle, the registration number of the motor vehicle, the
name of the insurance carrier covering the motor vehicle, the insurance policy
number of the insurance policy insuring the motor vehicle and the phone number
of the insurance carrier.
(d) Upon request
and if available, exhibit and give to the persons injured and to the occupant
of or person attending any vehicle damaged the number of any document issued as
official evidence of driving privileges granted to the driver.
(e) Render to any
person injured in the collision reasonable assistance, including the conveying,
or the making of arrangements for the conveying, of an injured person to a
physician, surgeon or hospital for medical or surgical treatment, if it is
apparent that such treatment is necessary or if such conveying is requested by
any injured person.
(f) Remain at the
scene of a collision until a police officer has arrived and has received the
required information, if all persons required to be given information under
paragraph (c) of this subsection are killed in the collision or are unconscious
or otherwise incapable of receiving the information. The requirement of this
paragraph to remain at the scene of a collision until a police officer arrives
does not apply to a driver who needs immediate medical care, who needs to leave
the scene in order to secure medical care for another person injured in the
collision or who needs to leave the scene in order to report the collision to
the authorities, as long as the driver who leaves takes reasonable steps to
return to the scene or to contact the nearest police officer.
(g) If the driver
discovers only after leaving the scene of the collision that the driver has
reason to believe that the driver’s vehicle was involved in a collision that
resulted in injury or death to any person, the driver shall as soon as
reasonably possible make a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of
this subsection. The driver shall immediately contact 9-1-1 and provide to the
dispatcher any requested information described in paragraph (c) of this
subsection and the location and approximate time of the collision.
(2) As used in
this section, “reason to believe” means that the driver is aware of a
circumstance that would cause a reasonable person to be aware of a substantial
and unjustifiable risk that the driver’s vehicle has been in a collision. The
risk must be of such nature or degree that failure to be aware of it
constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable
person would observe in the situation.
(3)(a) Except as
otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, the offense described
in this section, failure to perform the duties of a driver to injured persons,
is a Class C felony and is applicable, notwithstanding ORS 801.020 (9), to any
place a collision is caused by the motion of a vehicle or its load that results
in injury or death.
(b) If a person
suffers serious physical injury as defined in ORS 161.015 or dies as a result
of the collision, the offense described in this section, failure to perform the
duties of a driver to injured persons, is a Class B felony, and is applicable,
notwithstanding ORS 801.020 (9), to any place a collision is caused by the
motion of a vehicle or its load. [1983 c.338 §573; 1993 c.621 §1; 2001 c.919 §1;
2017 c.75 §2; 2018 c.22 §2; 2024 c.63 §15]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
64
cases (
20 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case:
State v. Moncada, 250 P.3d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Moncada, 250 P.3d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 20× “Defendant, who pleaded guilty to two counts of failure to perform the duties of a driver to injured persons, ORS 811.705, appeals the resulting judgment, assigning error to (1) the trial court’s failure to merge his convictions and (2) the court’s imposition of consecutive…”
State v. Hval, 25 P.3d 958 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 8× “Defendant contrasts the misdemeanor “hit and run” offense with the felony “hit and run” offense under ORS 811.705, which states, in part: “(1) A person commits the offense of failure to perform the duties of a driver to injured persons if the person is the driver of any vehicle…”
State v. Bassett, 259 P.3d 953 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 15× “700 — as opposed to the “personal injury” variant of the failure to perform the duties of a driver statute, ORS 811.705 — the trial court erred by imposing restitution related to the officer’s medical expenses.”
State v. Horton, 535 P.3d 338 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “She also challenges the court’s imposition of 36 months of post- prison supervision as part of her sentence on her conviction for failure to perform the duties of a driver to injured persons, ORS 811.705. Held: As to the instructional error, defendant did not preserve the claim…”
State v. Hamlett, 230 P.3d 92 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 11× “ORS 811.705. On appeal, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in its pretrial ruling that the state was not required to prove that defendant knew that a person was injured in an accident from which he left the scene.”
State v. Larson, 917 P.2d 519 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 8× “Defendant first assigns error to the denial of his motion to suppress all statements and evidence obtained after the accident, arguing that the statements he made at the scene of the accident were unlawfully obtained, because ORS 811.705 required that he remain at the scene of…”
State v. Gatewood, 452 P.3d 1046 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 3× “On appeal, the defendant asserted that the court erred by failing to merge the two counts and by imposing consecutive sentences.”
State v. Gray, 833 P.2d 341 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 4× “140, a Class A Misdemeanor, and failure to perform the duty of a driver to injured persons, ORS 811.705, a Class C Felony. The two convictions arose out of a *342 collision between vehicles driven by defendant and the victim.”
Towe v. Sacagawea, Inc., 346 P.3d 1207 (Or. 2015).
“700 and ORS 811.705 (duties of driver involved in accident that injures person or property apply equally to premises open to public).”
State v. Garcia-Cisneros, 397 P.3d 49 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 15× “ORS 811.705. On appeal, she assigns error to the trial court’s denial of her motion for judgment of acquittal based on the insufficiency of the evidence.”
State v. Mazziotti, 360 P.3d 1200 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“700, failure to perform the duties of a driver to injured persons, ORS 811.705, reckless endangerment, ORS 163.”
State v. Montiel-Delvalle, 468 P.3d 995 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “On appeal, defendant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motions to suppress (1) evidence derived from a police officer’s search of his car that led to the offi- cer determining defendant’s identity, and (2) defendant’s post-arrest statements regarding his physical…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.705(1) — 11 cases
State v. Larson, 917 P.2d 519 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
“Defendant first assigns error to the denial of his motion to suppress all statements and evidence obtained after the accident, arguing that the statements he made at the scene of the accident were unlawfully obtained, because ORS 811.705 required that he remain at the scene of…”
State v. Hamlett, 230 P.3d 92 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“ORS 811.705. On appeal, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in its pretrial ruling that the state was not required to prove that defendant knew that a person was injured in an accident from which he left the scene.”
State v. Hval, 25 P.3d 958 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“Defendant contrasts the misdemeanor “hit and run” offense with the felony “hit and run” offense under ORS 811.705, which states, in part: “(1) A person commits the offense of failure to perform the duties of a driver to injured persons if the person is the driver of any vehicle…”
State v. Moncada, 250 P.3d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“Defendant, who pleaded guilty to two counts of failure to perform the duties of a driver to injured persons, ORS 811.705, appeals the resulting judgment, assigning error to (1) the trial court’s failure to merge his convictions and (2) the court’s imposition of consecutive…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.705(1)(c) — 1 case
State v. Garcia-Cisneros, 397 P.3d 49 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“ORS 811.705. On appeal, she assigns error to the trial court’s denial of her motion for judgment of acquittal based on the insufficiency of the evidence.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.705(1)(f) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.705(2) — 1 case
State v. Hval, 25 P.3d 958 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“Defendant contrasts the misdemeanor “hit and run” offense with the felony “hit and run” offense under ORS 811.705, which states, in part: “(1) A person commits the offense of failure to perform the duties of a driver to injured persons if the person is the driver of any vehicle…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.705(2)(a) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.705(2)(b) — 4 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.705(3)(a) — 4 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.705(3)(b) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.705(l)(e) — 3 cases
State v. Moncada, 250 P.3d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“Defendant, who pleaded guilty to two counts of failure to perform the duties of a driver to injured persons, ORS 811.705, appeals the resulting judgment, assigning error to (1) the trial court’s failure to merge his convictions and (2) the court’s imposition of consecutive…”
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.