Court Opinion

ID: 9536322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 06:57:32.080145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:32:50.107172
License: Public Domain

HOLMAN, J.,
dissenting.
The obvious purpose of the clause in question was to exclude coverage of a class of persons, the members of which were considered to be more susceptible to errors in the operation and control of motor vehicles. As long as the actual control of the motion and location of the vehicle is by a member of the excluded class which is more prone to error, the risk sought to be excluded is in existence. This is true whether the course and handling of the vehicle was governed by driving, towing, remote electrical control, or otherwise. In Schaffer v. Mill Owners Ins. Co., 242 Or 150, 407 P2d 614 (1965), the term “operate” was held to contemplate the actual manual control of the vehicle and, in the factual context there, it was held to be the equivalent of “drive.” However, there is nothing in that opinion to indicate that an “operator” must necessarily be a “driver.” There is no logical reason to believe the provision intended that the risk was to be *607excluded or included on the basis of the manner of the vehicle’s control rather than by the class of persons exercising the control which created the risk.
I therefore dissent.
Sloan and O’Connell, JJ., join in this dissent.