Eclectic Investment, LLC v. Patterson
Annotate this CasePetitioner Jackson County (the county) sought reconsideration of the Oregon Supreme Court's opinion in "Eclectic Investment, LLC v. Patterson," (346 P3d 468 (2015)) in which the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and trial court decisions denying the county’s common-law indemnity claim. The Court concluded that, “[i]n cases in which the Oregon comparative negligence statutes apply and in which jurors allocate fault -and thereby responsibility- for payment of damages between tortfeasors, and each tortfeasor’s liability is several only, a judicially created means of allocating fault and responsibility is not necessary or justified.” The Court allowed the request for reconsideration because the Court rested its conclusion on an analysis that the parties had not expressly identified. The county raised three points that it thought might affect the Court's analysis. The Supreme Court took the opportunity, in this opinion, to briefly address those points and explain why it adhered to its prior conclusion.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.