Statute of Limitations: Oregon's Two-Year Deadline
Oregon gives injured people two years to file a personal injury lawsuit. That deadline is set out in ORS 12.110(1), which requires that actions for personal injury — whether arising from a car accident on the Burnside Bridge, a slip and fall at a Eugene shopping center, or a workplace injury in Salem — be commenced within two years of the date the injury occurred.
Missing that deadline is usually fatal to the case. Oregon courts routinely dismiss claims filed even a single day late, and defendants raise the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense. Two years sounds like plenty of time, but between medical treatment, insurance negotiations, and gathering evidence, it disappears faster than most injured people expect.
The Discovery Rule
The clock does not always start on the day of the accident. Under Oregon's discovery rule, the two-year period begins when the plaintiff knows — or reasonably should know — that they have suffered an injury caused by another party's conduct. This matters most in cases involving latent injuries, toxic exposure, or medical conditions that develop gradually over time. Someone exposed to asbestos in a Portland industrial facility, for example, may not discover the connection between their illness and their employer's negligence until years after the exposure ended. Courts apply the discovery rule narrowly; willful ignorance does not extend the deadline.
Tolling for Minors
When the injured party is a minor, the statute of limitations is tolled — paused — until the child turns 18. From that birthday, the minor has two years to file. However, a parent pursuing a separate claim for a child's medical expenses faces the standard adult deadline. Families in Portland and elsewhere frequently miss the distinction, pursuing the child's claim correctly while letting the parent's derivative claim lapse.
Claims Against Government: The 180-Day Notice Trap
Oregon imposes a separate and much shorter deadline when the defendant is a government entity — a city bus, a county road crew, a state agency employee, or any other public body. Under the Oregon Tort Claims Act (ORS 30.275), an injured person must deliver written notice to the appropriate government agency within 180 days of the incident. This notice must include the time and place of the incident, a description of the circumstances, and the claimant's contact information.
Oregon Government Claims — Two Separate Deadlines: You have 180 days to file written notice under the Oregon Tort Claims Act (ORS 30.275), AND a separate two-year deadline to file the actual lawsuit. Miss the 180-day notice and your state-law claims are gone — even if the two-year lawsuit deadline has not yet passed. These run simultaneously and independently. If the government entity is a city or county, confirm which agency receives the notice; sending it to the wrong office can be treated as non-compliance.
The 180-day notice requirement exists separately from the ultimate lawsuit deadline. An injured person who provides timely notice still must file suit within the applicable time limit — generally two years. Wrongful death claims against government entities get a slightly longer 365-day notice window. The statute provides limited tolling for individuals who are physically or mentally incapacitated, but that exception requires a showing that the incapacity prevented the claimant from giving notice, and courts scrutinize such arguments carefully. When a Portland pedestrian is struck by a TriMet bus or a Salem cyclist is injured on a poorly maintained state road, the government-claim notice deadline runs from day one regardless of how long treatment continues.
Modified Comparative Fault: Oregon's 51% Bar
Oregon uses a modified comparative fault system, codified at ORS 31.600. The rule determines what happens when the injured plaintiff contributed to their own injury — a common scenario in car accidents, slip-and-falls, and construction site injuries throughout the state.
The mechanics are straightforward in theory. A jury assigns a percentage of fault to each party. If the plaintiff is found to be 50% or less at fault, they can still recover damages — but the award is reduced by their percentage of fault. A Portland cyclist who is hit by a driver running a red light but who was also riding without a helmet might be found 20% at fault. If the jury awards $100,000, that plaintiff takes home $80,000.
The 51% Threshold
The critical cutoff is 51%. Under ORS 31.600, if the plaintiff is found to be 51% or more responsible for the accident, they recover nothing at all. This is Oregon's "modified" version of comparative fault — it preserves the plaintiff's right to recover when they share blame, but draws a hard line past the halfway point. Some states use a 50% bar; Oregon's is 51%, which means a plaintiff found exactly half responsible can still collect half their damages. That one percentage point matters in close cases.
Defendants' attorneys in Eugene, Portland, and across Oregon routinely work to establish that the plaintiff's own negligence pushed them over that threshold. Jurors in cases involving motorcycle accidents, pedestrian incidents, and premises liability claims frequently grapple with apportioning fault among multiple parties.
Several Liability Only — No Joint and Several
Oregon abolished traditional joint and several liability in 1995. Under ORS 31.610, when multiple defendants are found liable, each is responsible only for their proportional share of the damages — not the full judgment. If Defendant A is 30% at fault and Defendant B is 70% at fault, the plaintiff cannot collect the entire judgment from Defendant A alone if Defendant B cannot pay. Oregon does provide a limited reallocation mechanism: if a defendant's share is uncollectible, the plaintiff may move — within one year of the judgment becoming final — to reallocate that share among the remaining parties proportionally. However, reallocation is not available if the defendant's fault percentage was 25% or less, or if the defendant's fault did not exceed the plaintiff's own fault percentage.
Damage Caps: A Complicated and Evolving Story
Oregon's law on non-economic damage caps is unusually complex — and unusually plaintiff-friendly compared to many states. The short version: there is a statutory cap on the books, but Oregon's Supreme Court has repeatedly struck it down as unconstitutional, most recently in 2020. Understanding what remains enforceable requires knowing the full history.
The Lakin Decision (1999)
In Lakin v. Senco Products, Inc., 329 Or. 62, 987 P.2d 463 (1999), the Oregon Supreme Court struck down the then-existing $500,000 statutory cap on non-economic damages as a violation of Article I, Section 17 of the Oregon Constitution — the right to a jury trial. The court held that determining damages is a factual question committed to the jury, and that a statute requiring courts to reduce jury awards interfered unconstitutionally with that jury function. A nail-gun accident had produced a $2 million non-economic jury award; the trial court capped it at $475,000; the Supreme Court reversed.
The Legislature Responded — and Lost Again
The Oregon legislature rewrote the cap statute, and the dispute wound through the courts for decades. In 2020, the Oregon Supreme Court revisited the question in Busch v. McInnis Waste Systems, Inc., a case arising from a Portland crosswalk collision in which a garbage truck hit Scott Busch, resulting in the amputation of his leg. A jury awarded $10.5 million in non-economic damages; the trial court reduced it to $500,000 under ORS 31.710. The Supreme Court, five justices to two, held that applying the cap to Busch's case violated Article I, Section 10's guarantee of a remedy for injury. The cap was unenforceable as applied.
The court's ruling was framed as an as-applied constitutional holding rather than a facial invalidation. ORS 31.710 technically remains on the books. But its application in personal injury cases where the plaintiff has a right to a jury trial has repeatedly been found unconstitutional. For practical purposes, Oregon's general personal injury cases are not subject to an enforceable non-economic damage cap. Medical malpractice wrongful death claims occupy a different posture, and plaintiffs' attorneys in Portland and Salem should consult current case law before advising clients on the cap's status in any specific context.
Oregon's Unusual Punitive Damage Split
Oregon has one of the most distinctive punitive damage rules in the country. Under ORS 31.735, when a jury awards punitive damages, only 30% of that award goes to the prevailing plaintiff — and the attorney's fee paid out of the punitive portion cannot exceed 20% of the total punitive award. The remaining 70% goes to the state:
60% is paid to the Oregon Department of Justice for deposit into the Criminal Injuries Compensation Account of the Crime Victims' Assistance Section. 10% goes to the State Court Facilities and Security Account. The prevailing party must notify the Department of Justice within five days of the verdict or judgment.
This split-award rule means that in a case producing a $5 million punitive award, the plaintiff receives $1.5 million, the state receives $3.5 million, and the plaintiff's attorney is limited to $1 million from the punitive portion (20% of $5 million). For a plaintiff whose economic damages are modest but whose case involves egregious conduct — such as a manufacturer who knowingly concealed a defect — the split can create a significant mismatch between the jury's punishment intent and the plaintiff's actual recovery. Oregon is one of only a small number of states with this kind of mandatory punitive-award diversion.
Substantively, Oregon requires clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with malice or showed a reckless and outrageous indifference to a highly unreasonable risk of harm under ORS 31.730. Courts also conduct a post-verdict review of the award's reasonableness before entry of judgment.
Auto Insurance: Tort State with Mandatory PIP
Oregon is an at-fault — or "tort" — state for automobile insurance purposes. When a driver in Portland, Eugene, or anywhere else in Oregon is responsible for a crash, that driver's liability insurance pays for the other party's losses. Injured drivers can pursue the at-fault party directly and are not restricted to their own insurance carrier first, as they would be in a true no-fault state like Michigan or Florida.
Oregon's Hybrid Approach: Mandatory PIP in a Tort State
Here is where Oregon does something unusual: despite being a tort state, Oregon mandates that every private passenger auto policy include Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage. Under ORS 742.524, the minimum PIP benefit is $15,000 per person for medical expenses incurred within one year of the accident. PIP pays regardless of fault — meaning an injured Oregon driver can submit medical bills to their own insurer immediately without waiting for fault to be determined or for the other driver's liability insurer to accept the claim.
This hybrid approach gives injured Oregonians faster access to medical coverage while preserving the right to sue the at-fault driver for the full scope of losses. PIP and the tort claim operate in parallel, though insurers have subrogation rights that can affect how recoveries are structured. Attorneys handling Portland and Salem auto accident claims routinely coordinate PIP benefits with the liability claim to avoid inadvertent repayment obligations.
Oregon's Minimum Coverage Requirements
Oregon law requires all registered vehicles to carry at minimum:
Bodily Injury Liability: $25,000 per person / $50,000 per accident — covers injuries to others when the insured is at fault.
Property Damage Liability: $20,000 per accident.
Personal Injury Protection (PIP): $15,000 per person for medical expenses — required, not optional.
Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UM/UIM): $25,000 per person / $50,000 per accident for bodily injury.
The UM/UIM requirement matters considerably on Oregon roads. Oregon's minimum liability limits are relatively modest, and a serious injury resulting in substantial medical bills and lost wages can quickly exceed what an at-fault driver's policy covers. A Eugene resident hurt by an underinsured driver depends on their own UM/UIM coverage to bridge that gap. Purchasing UM/UIM coverage above the statutory minimum is one of the most cost-effective ways to protect against underinsured drivers — a practical reality on busy Portland metro freeways and rural Highway 97 alike.
Oregon drivers who can demonstrate continuous insurance coverage may take advantage of the state's graduated licensing and registration rules, but the minimum coverage requirements listed above apply universally to all registered private passenger vehicles. Commercial vehicles and rideshare drivers operating on Oregon roads carry separate and higher minimums.
Estimate Your Oregon Settlement
Use our free calculator to get an instant range based on your injury type, treatment costs, and fault percentage — calibrated for Oregon's modified comparative fault rules.
Use the Free Calculator →