Court Opinion

ID: 9792067
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:22:35.728267+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:40.431960
License: Public Domain

On Respondent’s Petition for a Rehearing.
*405Before McAllister, Chief Justice, and Rossman, Warner, Perry, O’Connell and Goodwin, Justices.
O’CONNELL, J.
Plaintiff asserts that we were factually in error in stating that defendant was attempting to read the road sign prior to making the left turn to enter the road leading to Salem. There was no direct evidence to this effect and our conclusion was reached by way of inference from the testimony. The evidence discloses that as they approached the intersection, plaintiff and defendant were discussing the possibility of going to Salem rather than continue on to Corvallis. They had not reached a decision. At this time plaintiff was attempting to read the road sign “to see which way we should go.” We assumed that both plaintiff and defendant were attempting to determine which route would lead them to Salem in the event that they should decide to go there. Assuming that this is not a reasonable inference from the testimony, we still think that there is not sufficient evidence to establish reckless conduct on the part of the defendant.
The other grounds urged for granting a rehearing are without merit.
Petition for rehearing denied.