Case Name: TORRES, Petitioner on Review, v. PACIFIC POWER AND LIGHT, Respondent on Review
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1987-08-11
Citations: 304 Or. 1
Docket Number: TC L83-2014; CA A35226; SC S33893
Parties: TORRES, Petitioner on Review, v. PACIFIC POWER AND LIGHT, Respondent on Review.
Judges: Before Peterson, C. J., and Lent, Carson, Jones and Gillette, JJ.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 304
Pages: 1–2

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted July 7,
petition for review dismissed as improvidently allowed August 11, 1987
TORRES, Petitioner on Review, v. PACIFIC POWER AND LIGHT, Respondent on Review.
(TC L83-2014; CA A35226; SC S33893)
740 P2d 792
Robert J. Guarrasi, Eugene, argued the cause and filed the petition for petitioner on review. With him on the petition were James L. Edmunson and Malagon & Moore, Eugene.
William G. Wheatley, Eugene, argued the cause and filed the response to the petition on behalf of the respondent on review. With him on the response were Denise G. Fjordbeck and Jaqua, Wheatley, Gallagher & Holland, P.C., Eugene.
Before Peterson, C. J., and Lent, Carson, Jones and Gillette, JJ.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
We allowed review because this case appeared to involve the question whether a defense against liability for harm caused by noncompliance with a mandatory safety regulation must meet the test of McConnell v. Herron, 240 Or 486, 489-92, 402 P2d 726 (1965) (i.e. that the defense would excuse noncompliance also against direct enforcement of the regulation), or the test of Resser v. Boise-Cascade Corporation, 284 Or 385, 392, 587 P2d 80 (1978), cited by the Court of Appeals. Examination of the proceedings below now shows that this issue was not properly preserved and presented for review. The petition for review is dismissed as improvidently allowed.