Padrick v. Lyons

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Tort Law
  • Date Filed: 04-13-2016
  • Case #: A153600
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Devore, J. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; Haselton, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under the discovery rule for breaches of fiduciary duty, ORS 12.110(1), the statutory period begins to run from the earlier of (1) the date the plaintiff actually discovers the injury or (2) the date when the plaintiff, exercising reasonable care, should have discovered the injury, including learning facts that an inquiry would have disclosed. A plaintiff discovers an "injury" when he knew, or reasonably should have known, of the existence of three elements: (1) harm, (2) causation, and (3) tortious conduct.

Padrick appealed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment on all of his claims of breach of fiduciary duty conduct against Lyons. Padrick assigned error to the tiral court's grant of summary of summary judgment for Lyons. The statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty is two years. ORS 12.110(1). Under the discovery rule for breaches of fiduciary duty, ORS 12.110(1), the statutory period begins to run from the earlier of (1) the date the plaintiff actually discovers the injury or (2) the date when the plaintiff, exercising reasonable care, should have discovered the injury, including learning facts that an inquiry would have disclosed. A plaintiff discovers an "injury" when he knew, or reasonably should have known, of the existence of three elements: (1) harm, (2) causation, and (3) tortious conduct. A person is subject to liability for harm to a third person from the tortious conduct of another if the person: (a) does a tortious act in concert with the other, (b) knows that the other’s conduct constitutes a breach of duty and gives substantial assistance to conduct himself, or (c) gives substantial assistance to the other in accomplishing a tortious result and his own conduct, separately considered, constitutes a breach of duty to the third person. The Court found that there was no evidence that Lyons was involved with any tortious injury. Affirmed.

Advanced Search