Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.706 (2026)

Money damages resulting from violation of ORS 811.700 or 811.705

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      811.706 Money damages resulting from violation of ORS 811.700 or 811.705. When a person is convicted of violating ORS 811.700 or 811.705, the court, in addition to any other sentence it may impose, may order the person to pay an amount of money equal to the amount of any damages caused by the person as a result of the incident that created the duties in ORS 811.700 or 811.705. [1995 c.782 §2]

 

      Note: 811.706 was enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 811 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: State v. Hval, 25 P.3d 958 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Hval, 25 P.3d 958 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 27× “He assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal and to the court’s order under ORS 811.706 requiring him to pay $500 compensation to the victim as a condition of probation.”
State v. Bassett, 259 P.3d 953 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 26× “He appeals from a supplemental judgment ordering him to pay restitution pursuant to ORS 811.706 for the driver’s medical expenses.”
State v. Anderson, 380 P.3d 1201 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 29× “Under ORS 811.706, which authorizes the imposition of restitution upon a conviction for hit and run, the court awarded restitution in the amount of $5,807.”
State v. Piazza, 13 P.3d 567 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 12× “” The prosecutor replied that ORS 811.706 2 authorized restitution. According to the prosecutor, that statute was intended to supersede several appellate decisions holding that restitution could not be imposed in hit-and-run cases unless the damages at issue were directly…”
State v. Webster, 188 P.3d 329 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 10× “The sentencing court imposed restitution under ORS 811.706, which permits the imposition of restitution for accident-related damages upon a finding that the defendant caused the accident that gave rise to the duties on which the conviction was based.”
State v. Llanos-Martinez, 60 P.3d 1099 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 9× “It is instead ORS 811.706. And I have attached a copy of that statute with the materials I gave to the Court.”
State v. Whiteside, 464 P.3d 452 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 33× “Further, the trial court did not err in declining to award restitution according to an apportioned percentage of fault because ORS 811.706, the restitution statute that applies to ORS 811.”
State v. N. R. L., 277 P.3d 564 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 5× “705, the court, in addition to any other sentence it may impose, may order the person to pay an amount of money equal to the amount of any damages caused by the person as a result of the incident that created the duties in ORS 811.”
State v. Shafer, 161 P.3d 689 (Idaho Ct. App. 2007). “The holding of this case has since been superseded by statute; a new provision of the statute regarding leaving the scene of an accident now specifically provides that restitution may be imposed for the underlying accident.”
State v. Ramos, 340 P.3d 703 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “Webster, 220 Or App 531, 535 , 188 P3d 329 , rev den, 345 Or 318 (2008) (applying reasoning of McMillan to restitution under ORS 811.706, which permits the imposition of restitution for automobile accident-related damages; statutory maximum sentence encompasses amount of damages…”
State v. Marshall-Lautt, 344 Or. App. 716 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 14× “As explained below, although defendant recognizes that ORS 811.706 “grants the court authority to award restitution” when a person is convicted of failing to perform the duties of a driver, ORS 811.”
State v. Kappelman, 986 P.2d 603 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “4 In 1995, the legislature expanded a trial court’s restitution authority in hit-and-rnn prosecutions by enacting ORS 811.706, which provides: “When a person is convicted of violating ORS 811.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
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.