Roberts v. Fearey

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that Oregon has adopted a case-by-case approach in determining whether to take a case out of the general rule
• stating that, only after a special relationship has been established, creating a heightened duty of care, “does Fazzolari’s [common-law negligence] foreseeability analysis come into play”
• noting that a plaintiff cannot recover purely economic losses without relying on some duty outside the common law of negligence and stating that a plaintiff must first show the “existence” of that duty before foreseeability comes into play
• distinguishing Lee on the grounds that the “[defendant * * * adamantly denie[d] ever having agreed to represent [the plaintiff]” and the plaintiff did not contend otherwise
• “[A] particular source for the duty to protect from economic losses is required even if economic losses are a foreseeable consequence of a defendant’s conduct.”
• duty becomes an element of negligence “when the plaintiff pleads damages based on purely economic losses”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).