Court Opinion

ID: 9549363
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:16:48.100644+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:20:12.303287
License: Public Domain

WARREN, J.,
dissenting in part, concurring in part.
I join in the opinion by Richardson, J. I write only to point out that Schaffer v. Mill Owners Ins. Co., 242 Or 150, 407 P2d 614 (1965), was so factually dissimilar to the present case as to render the court’s following statement of no precedential significance in the present context: “When used in this context we construe ‘operator’ to be synonymous with ‘driver.’ ” In Schaffer, the person claimed to be the operator was sleeping in the back seat of the car and exercised no actual physical control over the movements of the vehicle immediately prior to the accident. The driver was his 17-year-old son, who was excluded from the policy as an underage driver. In the context of Schaffer, there can be no doubt that the driver was also the operator.
In Schaffer, however, the court referred repeatedly to the fact than an “operator” is one who exercises actual physical control over the vehicle. And that was in fact the basis of the decision in Schaffer. In the present case, the actions of Miss White altered the vehicle’s course and her *675exertion of that actual physical control over the vehicle’s direction caused the accident. The view taken by Judge Richardson is consistent with the statutory definition of the term “operator” and is not at odds with Schaffer, when that case is considered in its factual context.