Court Opinion

ID: 9545085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:05:38.513611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:14:03.507512
License: Public Domain

SLOAN, J.,
dissenting.
The majority rely on Lemons et al v. Holland et al, 1955, 205 Or 163, 284 P2d 1041, 286 P2d 656, 4 ALR2d 1253, to hold that the presumption of due care does not avail plaintiff in this case. The relationship of the parties in that case is the reverse of that in the instant one. In Lemons defendant was the one who was proceeding along the highway and it was held as a matter of law that she was not required to anticipate that some pedestrian would have negligently placed himself on the traveled portion of the highway. The opinion of the court said that:
“* * * It is elementary that negligence on her part could not be assumed from the mere happening of the accident. The accident occurred at a place where pedestrians are required to walk upon their lefthand side of the roadway facing approaching traffic (OPS 483.220), and are prohibited from crossing the same without first yielding the right of way to all vehicles upon the highway (OBS 483.210 (4)). The defendant, while operating her car, could not reasonably be expected, nor was she required, to anticipate that any pedestrian would be in any but his own proper place on the road, or that he would fail to yield the right of way.” 205 Or 191.
*595Here, the deeedent had the right to anticipate the same care on the part of others using the freeway that Margery Holland had in the Lemons case. If Johnson, the driver of defendant’s tow truck, had been the plaintiff in this case he would then have been in a like position to Lemons in that case. Then the facts would have been comparable. In that event, as in the Lemons case, it would be obvious that there was concrete evidence to overcome the presumption. But that is not the case.
The majority, and the trial court, point to evidence of the distance of visibility that could have prevailed at the time of the accident, the flashing lights on the tow truck and so-called “existing conditions” to decide that there was evidence to overcome the presumption. There is no word of testimony in this case as to the conditions existing at the time the accident occurred. And the fact that the lights on the tow truck may have been observable would not warn an approaching driver that the tow truck was unlawfully and recklessly parked several feet onto the inner south bound lane of the freeway. There was no evidence at all of the actual existing facts. Accordingly, the presumption should take the case to the jury. Doty v. Southern Pacific Co., 1949, 186 Or 808, 207 P2d 131; Hillman v. North. Wasco Co. PUD, 1958, 213 Or 264, 323 P2d 664.
In addition it was jury work to have decided if the flashing lights on the tow truck in the circumstances presented, gave the decedent adequate warning that the truck was parked on the traveled portion of the freeway. The case should have been submitted to the jury.