California employee sued Oregon university for negligence and negligent misrepresentation, alleging employee was severely injured when crane he was operating tipped over while he was loading a stack container owned by Oregon university onto a vessel owned by his employer in California.
The Superior Court overruled Oregon university’s demurrer to the complaint asserting complaint failed to comply with Oregon Tort Claims Act’s notice provision. Oregon university petitioned for peremptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate order overruling demurrer and to enter new order sustaining demurrer without leave to amend.
On rehearing, the Court of Appeal held that:
- Applying Act’s claims notice provision would not conflict with or violate California public policy, as would support determination that Act was entitled to full faith and credit;
- Declining to apply Act’s claims notice provision would evince a policy of discriminatory hostility to the provision; but
- Employee demonstrated reasonable possibility that he could cure pleading defect in complaint by pleading facts showing compliance with Act’s claims notice provision.
Applying Oregon Tort Claims Act’s claims notice provision in negligence action against Oregon university by California employee, who was allegedly injured when loading a container owned by university onto vessel in California, would not conflict with or violate California public policy, as would support determination that Oregon Act was entitled to full faith and credit in employee’s action, even though California was competent to legislate on subject matter of personal injury within the state and had sufficient contacts to apply its substantive law. Oregon Act and California’s Government Claims Act had similar claims notice provisions, served similar purposes, functioned similarly, and applied to public universities.