regard, the county was not a mere unwitting facilitator; after having undertaken to investigate and respond to the abuse charges against CP, it nonetheless permitted him for an extended period of time to retain the very means — ongoing unsupervised freedom of movement — to commit the crimes against the Malheur County victims. Moreover, unlike in Oregon Steel Mills, Inc., where the delay in a stock offering did not create a risk of the general steel market decline that produced the plaintiffs loss, here, the intervening harm-producing force, CP’s criminal conduct, was a risk that was directly related to the county’s alleged failure to adequately investigate and respond to the Union County sexual abuse charges after having undertaken that responsibility. See Panpat, 188 Or App at 392 (<HOLDING>); see also Washa, 159 Or App at 224 (same). We
holding that the most important factor in the preservation hierarchy is whether the relevant issue was raised in the trial court and the least important factor is whether the appellant alerted the trial court to the specific argument raised on appeal holding that a close business relationship between a signatory and nonsignatory is an important factor in determining if it was foreseeable that the nonsignatory would be bound holding that a third partys history of violence at least insofar as it was known to the defendant plays an important role in determining whether the harm was reasonably foreseeable holding that a professional is one who plays a central role in a debtors case recognizing that an officers knowledge concerning the unusual susceptibility of a defendant to a particular form of persuasion might be an important factor in determining whether the officer should have known that his words or actions were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response