Court Opinion

ID: 9791402
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:10:14.920813+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:35.959782
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
*519On respondents’ petition for rehearing.
John E. Jaqua, Eugene, for the petition. With him on the brief were Jaqua & Wheatley, Eugene.
Hugh L. Barzee, Portland, filed a brief amicus curiae on behalf of The Associated General Contractors of America, Inc. With him on the brief were Barzee, Leedy & Tassock, Portland.
SLOAN, J.
In their petition for rehearing defendants overlook a most significant statement in the original opinion. That statement was: “After trial, the court found defendants] Bessonette and Graff negligently and proximately caused the damage complained of, but not responsible for the injury to the tenant for lack of privity.” It seemingly needs to be emphasized that, for the purpose of this appeal, negligence and causation were admitted. We were presented with the legal problem: Was lack of privity of contract a defense? We held that it was not.
The rule adopted by most of the courts that have more recently considered the question is that a contractor is liable for a breach of the standard of reasonable care and that the lack of privity of contract between the parties is not a defense. Cosgriff Neon Company v. Mattheus, 1962, 371 P2d 819.
The brief of amicus appears to express misgivings that contractors may be held liable without a showing of negligence. This was not the basis of our ruling *520in this case. Evidence of a lack of due care upon the part of the contractor must, of course, be submitted to bring a case within the ambit of our opinion herein.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
Rossman, J., dissents.