Opinion ID: 1381996
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendants' Requested Instruction

Text: Defendants next contend that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that plaintiff was negligent as a matter of law. Defendants correctly note that even in cases where the court cannot say as a matter of law that plaintiff's negligence exceeded defendant's, it still may conclude as a matter of law that plaintiff was negligent in some respect. In such cases, the court should instruct the jury that it must find plaintiff at least partially negligent, but that plaintiff may still recover if his negligence was not greater than defendant's. See Sofich v. Hill, 277 Or. 327, 560 P.2d 633 (1977). [4] At the time the accident occurred, ORS 483.104 provided in part that: Any speed in excess of the speeds designated in this section    shall be prima facie evidence of violation of ORS 483.102 [the basic speed rule]. The speeds designated in this section are: (1) Twenty miles per hour:      . (b) When approaching within 100 feet of a grade crossing of a railway, interurban railway or street railway where the driver's view of the crossing or of any traffic on such railway within a distance of 400 feet in either direction is obstructed. Plaintiff's own testimony established that he was travelling 35 to 40 miles per hour at a point about 100 feet from the crossing. Plaintiff's testimony also established that a line of trees extending to a point 300 feet from the railroad crossing impaired his view. Defendants contend that plaintiff was therefore in violation of the basic speed rule at the time the accident occurred, and that under the doctrine of negligence per se the trial court should have instructed the jury that plaintiff was at least partially negligent as a matter of law. [5] Under the doctrine of negligence per se, the violation of a statute raises a disputable presumption of negligence if the violation results in an injury to a member of the class of persons intended to be protected and the harm is of a kind the legislation was enacted to prevent. Barnum v. Williams, 264 Or. 71, 504 P.2d 122 (1972). Once such a violation is shown, the burden shifts to the party who violated the statute to prove that he nevertheless acted reasonably. It is clear that ORS 483.104 was designed to prevent precisely the kind of accident that occurred in the instant case: a collision between an automobile and a train where the automobile driver's view of the train is for some reason obscured. Plaintiff offered no evidence to show that his speed was reasonable under the circumstances. On the contrary, plaintiff's only explanation for his speed was his inability to see the train, a factor that does not excuse the statutory violation but, rather, brings ORS 483.104 into play. Absent an adequate explanation for the violation of the basic speed rule, the trial court should have instructed the jury that plaintiff was at least partially negligent as a matter of law, and it was error for the court to refuse defendants' requested instruction to that effect.