affirming the trial court's finding that the state was required to indemnify the city for its negligence related to a state road sign, where the state did not install the sign but had the right to inspect and control its re-erection, even if that control was never exercised
Summary of this case from Atl. Specialty Ins. Co. v. Or. Sch. Bds. Ass'n Prop. & Cas. Coverage for Educ. Tr.June 1, 1988.
affirming the trial court's finding that the state was required to indemnify the city for its negligence related to a state road sign, where the state did not install the sign but had the right to inspect and control its re-erection, even if that control was never exercised
Summary of this case from Atl. Specialty Ins. Co. v. Or. Sch. Bds. Ass'n Prop. & Cas. Coverage for Educ. Tr.Full title:PETITIONS FOR REVIEW
Court:Oregon Supreme Court
Date published: Jun 1, 1988
Our conclusion in that regard applies equally to public employees and to other persons who are "agents"…
State ex rel Frohnmayer v. Bicar, Inc." (Emphasis in original.) The state relies on Lockard and Lockard, 89 Or. App. 640, 646, 750 P.2d 522, rev…