 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hammond v. Central Lane Communications Center8/22/1991
SUPREME COURT OF OREGON
SC No. S37277
1991.OR.40687 ; 816 P.2d 593; 312 Or. 17
August 22, 1991
MARY HAMMOND, PETITIONER ON REVIEW,
v.
CENTRAL LANE COMMUNICATIONS CENTER; CITY OF EUGENE; LANE COUNTY OREGON; OREGON STATE POLICE; LANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND VARIOUS UNNAMED EMPLOYEES OF THE ABOVE, RESPONDENTS ON REVIEW
On review from the Court of Appeals. CC No. 16-87-09193; CA No. A50155.
Ralph A. Bradley, Eugene, argued the cause for petitioner on review. With him on the petition was Bradley & Gordon, P.C., Eugene.
John B. Arnold, Eugene, argued the cause for respondents on review Central Lane Communications Center and City of Eugene. With him on the response was Harrang, Long, Watkinson, Arnold & Laird, P.C., Eugene.
Robert M. Atkinson, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent on review Oregon State Police. With him on the response were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
David B. Williams, Assistant County Counsel, Eugene, argued the cause for respondents on review Lane County and Lane County Sheriff's Department. With him on the response was Lane County Office of Legal Counsel, Eugene.
In Banc. Van Hoomissen, J. Unis, J., concurred in part and dissented in part and filed an opinion.
Van Hoomissen
This is a tort action for damages based on theories of negligent and reckless infliction of severe emotional distress. Plaintiff alleges that she sustained psychic and emotional injuries as a result of the manner in which defendants responded to a 9-1-1 call that she made concerning her husband and as a result of the manner in which defendants designed the Lane County 9-1-1 emergency telephone system. The trial court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment. ORCP 47. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Hammond v. Central Lane Communications Center, 101 Or App 569, 792 P2d 440 (1990). Because plaintiff suffered no physical injury from defendants' alleged negligence and because she has not shown that defendants' conduct was anything more than negligent, we also affirm.
We view the record in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the party opposing defendants' summary judgment motions. Seeborg v. General Motors Corporation, 284 Or 695, 699, 588 P2d 1100 (1978).
Plaintiff awoke to find her 67-year-old husband, who suffered from congestive heart failure, lying on the kitchen floor. He was not breathing, had no apparent pulse, was cold to the touch, and was bluish in color.
Plaintiff dialed 9-1-1. She spoke to a 9-1-1 operator, who asked her questions about the nature of the emergency. At the operator's request, plaintiff checked to see if her husband was breathing. He was not. The operator asked plaintiff to try to find a pulse. She found none. On the basis of the information provided by plaintiff, the operator concluded that plaintiff's husband was dead from natural causes. The operator told plaintiff that someone would be at her house "in just a couple of minutes." During the time plaintiff waited for help to arrive, her husband made "rasping breathing sounds."
An electronic message, reporting information from plaintiff's call and the 9-1-1 operator's assessment of the nature of the call, was immediately dispatched via computer to the Eug
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Oregon Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|