Court Opinion

ID: 9791811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:18:27.3648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:38.711162
License: Public Domain

PERRY, J.,
dissenting.
I am unable to agree with the majority. In my opinion the negligence of the defendant had come to *546rest insofar, as the .breakage of the dunnage'is concerned. After the dunnage' broke, it is true, a new situation wás created, out of which an injury might occur, but' no' more so than in attempting to carry out any work of lifting.
The attempt to distinguish the case of Zickrick v. Cooke et al., 197 Or 87, 252 P2d 185, on the basis that in that case the plaintiff was a mere volunteer does not answer the underlying principle of law set forth therein, which is, that negligence, having come to rest, the prior negligence is not a proximate cause in producing the subsequent injury.
The allegations and the evidence in this case disclose that the defendant and others volunteered to lift the truck and its 1,800 pound load. The same situation would have existed had these same men attempted to lift the load whether the dunnage was broken or not.
The plaintiff has relied upon the doctrine that danger invites rescue, but that doctrine only applies in “response to fear or emotional disturbance” caused by a negligent defendant. 2 Restatement of Torts, Causation, § 444, page 1191.
For the above reasons, I dissent.