Court Opinion

ID: 9849728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:45:09.496945+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:25.447651
License: Public Domain

DE MUNIZ, P. J.,
dissenting.
I dissent. The majority acknowledges that defendant’s argument has merit and that its interpretation of ORS 811.335 leads to at least one common situation where it is physically impossible to comply with the statute. 158 Or App at 627 n 4. Nonetheless, the majority concludes that the “plain language” of the statute requires the result it reaches. The majority does not, however, explain the “plain language” that it finds so clear. I conclude that, when the language of the statute is addressed under the analytic framework of PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610, 859 *628P2d 1143 (1993), the “plain” language shows that the trial court was correct in its interpretation.
ORS 811.335 provides:
“(1) A person commits the offense of making an unlawful or unsignaled turn if the person is operating a vehicle upon a highway and the person turns the vehicle right or left when:
“(a) The movement cannot be made with reasonable safety; or
“(b) The person fails to give an appropriate signal continuously during not less than the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning.”
“Continuously” generally means “stretching on without break or interruption.” Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary, 494 (unabridged ed 1993). Thus, the text of ORS 811.335(1)(b) connotes continuing movement. The uninterrupted signal required by the statute is to be given “during not less than the last 100 feet traveled * * * before turning.” The text thus describes a signal given during an ongoing course of travel. The language of the text demonstrates a legislative intent that a driver provide adequate warning for a change in direction if the ongoing course of travel will be interrupted. See State v. Bea, 318 Or 220, 226, 864 P2d 854 (1993) (“turn” in ORS 811.335(1)(b) includes action that occurs when a vehicle changes its direction of travel and changes from one course of travel to another).
The context of ORS 811.335(1)(b) reinforces that interpretation. Subsection (a) covers situations other than the ongoing course of travel; there is no specific requirement of distance during which the signal must be given if the turn “cannot be made with reasonable safety[.]” Moreover, ORS 811.335(1)(b) states that a person commits the offense of making an unsignaled left or right turn if “[t]he person fails to give an appropriate signal[.]” ORS 811.395 describes the “appropriate signals” that are “required while stopping, turning, changing lanes or suddenly decelerating a vehicle.” (Emphasis added.) “While” means “during the time[.]” Webster’s at 2604. Reading ORS 811.335(1)(b) together with ORS 811.395, what is required is a signal indicating interruption *629in the course of travel. I would hold that the trial court correctly concluded that ORS 811.335 does not apply when a stop sign indicates that interruption.1

 The signal required for a stop is either a hand signal or “[a]ctivation of brake lights on the vehicle.” ORS 811.395(31.