Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
16CV05148
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
GARY CLARK, TIK TOK RESTAURANT )
& BAR and THE CITY OF PORTLAND, )
)
a municipal corporation,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
ALLISON RENANDER,
14
15
16
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
17
1.
18
19
At all material times, SE Stark Street, near the intersection of SE 155th Avenue, was and
is a public highway in Multnomah County, Oregon.
20
2.
21
At all material times, plaintiff, Allison Renander (RENANDER), was the operator of a
22
2009 Ford Crown Victoria and was employed by defendant The City of Portland (THE CITY)
23
as a police officer.
24
///
25
///
Page 1 of 9 - COMPLAINT
3.
At all material times, defendant Tik Tok Restaurant & Bar (TIK TOK), is authorized to
do business, and was doing business, as a restaurant and tavern located at 11215 SE Division
Street, Portland, Oregon, and was licensed to sell and was selling alcoholic beverages to the
general public.
4.
On or about February 27, 2015, defendant Gary Clark (CLARK) was operating an
uninsured white 1987 Dodge pickup truck while he was intoxicated, when he collided with
RENANDERs vehicle from behind at the location in paragraph 1 and caused injuries to her.
10
11
12
13
COUNT 1
(Negligence)
14
15
5.
16
6.
18
CLARK was negligent in one or more of the following particulars, which directly led to
19
7.
closed head injury, including a mild traumatic brain injury and a cephalohematoma, a cervical
strain, temporomandibular joint disorder with recurring muscle spasms and post-concussive
syndrome. These injuries, and the consequences of them, caused RENANDER to suffer
noneconomic damages including but not limited to past and future pain and suffering, as well as
past and future inconvenience and interference with normal and usual activities apart from
gainful employment, all to her noneconomic damages in a fair and reasonable amount to be
10
8.
11
12
resulting in past and future reasonable medical care and expenses related to services, all to her
13
14
15
16
9.
As a further result of CLARKs negligence, RENANDER sustained wage loss in the
amount of $4,166.00, or an amount to be proven at trial.
17
18
COUNT 2
(Negligence per se)
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
At all material times, the following legislative enactments were in existence for
the protection of the general public, including RENANDER:
813.010 Driving under the influence of intoxicants. (1) A person commits the
offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicants if the person drives a
vehicle while the person:
Page 3 of 9 - COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
(a) Has 0.08 percent or more by weight of alcohol in the blood of the person
as shown by chemical analysis of the breath or blood of the person made under
ORS 813.100, 813.140 or 813.150;
(b) Is under the influence of intoxicating liquor, a controlled substance or an
inhalant; or
(c) Is under the influence of any combination of intoxicating liquor, an
inhalant and a controlled substance.
*****
6
11.
7
CLARK failed to comply with the aforementioned requirements of the Oregon vehicle
8
12.
10
RENANDERs injuries.
12
13
14
15
16
COUNT 1
(Negligence)
17
13.
18
19
20
On or about the evening hours of February 27, 2015, CLARK consumed numerous
21
alcoholic beverages at TIK TOK. After consuming the aforementioned alcoholic beverages,
22
CLARK drove his motor vehicle in the manner described in paragraph 4 above.
15.
23
24
25
TIK TOK was negligent in serving alcoholic beverages to CLARK at a time when he was
visibly intoxicated.
Page 4 of 9 - COMPLAINT
16.
Many patrons who consume alcoholic beverages at TIK TOK and other similar
establishments arrive by motor vehicle, and leave the premises in the same manner. Many of the
persons consuming alcoholic beverages at TIK TOK during the evening hours of February 27,
2015, arrived by motor vehicle and later drove a motor vehicle after leaving TIK TOK.
6
7
8
17.
It was reasonably foreseeable that CLARK would operate a motor vehicle after
consuming alcoholic beverages at TIK TOK as described above.
18.
10
The negligence and/or fault of TIK TOK in serving alcoholic beverages to CLARK, prior
11
to the crash, at a time when he was visibly intoxicated, was a substantial factor in causing the
12
13
14
15
16
19.
Notice of this claim was given to TIK TOK pursuant to the provisions of ORS 471.565
on or about April 28, 2015.
17
18
19
COUNT 2
(Statutory Liability)
20
20.
21
22
21.
23
TIK TOK violated the provisions of ORS 471.565, which provide that no licensee,
24
permittee, or social host is liable for damages incurred or caused by intoxicated patrons or guests
25
of the licensee, permittee, or social host unless the licensee, permittee, or social host has served
Page 5 of 9 - COMPLAINT
or provided alcoholic beverages to the patron or guest while the patron or guest was visibly
establishment at a time when he was visibly intoxicated. Said acts on the part of TIK TOK were
a substantial factor in causing the crash of CLARKs motor vehicle into RENANDERs vehicle,
resulting in injuries and damages to her as set forth in paragraphs 7 through 9 above.
6
7
COUNT 1
(Punitive Damages)
9
10
22.
11
Reserved.
12
13
14
15
COUNT 1
(Declaratory Judgment)
16
17
23.
18
19
20
21
22
At all material times, THE CITY was and is a municipal corporation and a governmental
body/political subdivision of the state of Oregon.
25.
23
24
At all material times, THE CITY was a self-insured entity for its liability arising out of
25
collisions involving motor vehicles it owned and operated. As a self-insurer, THE CITY was and
Page 6 of 9 - COMPLAINT
is required by law to comply with uninsured (UM) and underinsured (UIM) motorist statutes
26.
In June 2015, RENANDER notified THE CITY she had an UM case. At some point
thereafter, after first agreeing that by law it had UM coverage, THE CITY communicated that
while they carried UM insurance, it was at the state minimum of $25,000 per person and
8
9
10
27.
THE CITY did not, prior to February 27, 2015, complete and sign a written election of
lower UM/UIM limits than its liability limits in the manner required by ORS 742.502.
11
12
13
28.
THE CITYs liability limit for motor vehicle collision injury claims is its applicable tort
claim limit, which as of February 27, 2015, was $666,700.00, pursuant to ORS 30.272.
14
29.
15
THE CITY failed to comply with ORS 742.502, and as a result, by law has UM/UIM
16
limits equal to its liability limits. THE CITY has refused to acknowledge its UM obligation to
17
plaintiff.
18
19
20
21
22
30.
A controversy under the provisions of ORS Chapter 28 now arises and exists among the
parties as follows:
a) RENANDER claims she is entitled to UM coverage for compensatory damages from
THE CITY;
23
b) RENANDER further claims the limits of coverage for uninsured and/or underinsured
24
motorist protection applicable in this case are $666.700.00, by law, for reasons
25
Page 7 of 9 - COMPLAINT
Or. App. 56 (1987) and numerous authorities that reformed UM limits or read higher
limits of UM/UIM coverage into insurance policies when an insurer purports to have
lower UM/UIM limits than liability limits but failed to comply with provisions such
c) This Court should order RENANDER and THE CITY to arbitrate the amount of
8
9
10
31.
RENANDER is entitled to an award of her reasonable attorney fees pursuant to ORS
742.061.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
a.
For a declaration that under the terms and conditions of Oregon law and the facts
20
herein:
21
(i) That THE CITY has UM/UIM limits covering plaintiffs bodily injury
22
23
(ii) That RENANDER and THE CITY shall arbitrate the determination of the amount
24
25
and
Page 8 of 9 - COMPLAINT
1
2
b. For judgment for her attorney fees, costs and disbursements against THE CITY
pursuant to ORS 742.061.
3
4
5
6
s/ Josh Lamborn____________
Josh Lamborn, OSB# 973090
Email: jpl@pdxinjury.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 9 of 9 - COMPLAINT