Court Opinion

ID: 9530362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:59:17.907967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:05.374502
License: Public Domain

PETERSON, J.,
specially concurring.
The majority states that "this is not an appropriate case * * * to decide whether a determination of negligence in a bailor-bailee case involves an inference of negligence, as opposed to a disputable presumption of negligence” because the defendant-bailee *133did come forward with evidence to refute the "presumption of negligence.” 289 Or at 126 n 2. At the same time, however, the majority states that the "disputable presumption of negligence places a burden upon the bailee-defendant to come forward with evidence to refute the presumption.” 289 Or at 125.
I concur with the majority, with this caveat. The rule that proof by the bailor of (1) a bailment and (2) a failure to return or return in damaged condition, creates a disputable presumption, with the "burden of going forward” shifting to the bailee, is consistent with our earlier cases, but has created confusion within the bench and bar. I favor a rule that proof of a bailment and a failure to return, or return in damaged condition, creates a permissive inference, which the trier of fact can accept or reject. No "burden of going forward” is created; no "risk of nonpersuasion” is imposed on the bailee.
It is not necessary to decide that question in this case, but I want to disassociate myself from that portion of the majority opinion which states the rule in terms of a disputable presumption. 289 Or at 125-127.
Lent, J., joins in this specially concurring opinion.