Court Opinion

ID: 9576968
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:30:22.751421+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:19:45.513423
License: Public Domain

VAN HOOMISSEN, J.,
dissenting.
Viewing the record on summary judgment in the light most favorable to defendant, Stanfield v. Laccoarce, 288 Or 659, 607 P2d 177 (1980), I conclude that there is a genuine issue of material fact between the parties, i.e., whether defendant acted in a commercially reasonable manner and exercised ordinary care in the payment of the checks drawn on plaintiffs account. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
Plaintiffs negligence substantially contributed to the forgeries. Therefore, plaintiff is precluded from asserting its claim if defendant paid the checks in good faith and in accordance with reasonable commercial banking standards. ORS 74.4060. Defendant contends that its procedures are much more likely to detect a forgery than is the “sight review” procedure proposed by plaintiff.
*599It would appear, almost by definition, that a practice followed by most banks comports with reasonable commercial banking standards. The question then is whether defendant exercised ordinary care in the payment of the checks. That question should be answered by a trier of fact. See Transamerica Ins. Co. v. U.S. Nat’l Bank, 276 Or 945, 955, 558 P2d 328 (1976).