Court Opinion

ID: 9588189
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:31:19.393875+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:44.942720
License: Public Domain

McALLISTER, J.,
dissenting.
The majority asserts that the verdict for defendant could have been based on a finding by the jury that if defendant stopped after starting across the intersection he first saw that such movement could be made in safety. This is a strange assumption in view of defendant’s testimony that he had not looked in his rear view mirror and did not know until the impact that plaintiff’s motorcycle was behind him. The fact that the two vehicles collided in the main traveled portion of the highway is evidence that if *164defendant stopped he did not first see that such movement could be made in safety.
ORS 483.126(1) imposed a twofold duty on defendant before he could stop on the highway in front of a following motorist: (1) to see that such movement could be made in safety, and (2) to give a proper signal to the driver of any vehicle who might be affected by such movement. The plaintiff was entitled to have the jury instructed as to both duties imposed on defendant by the statute.
In my opinion the error of the trial court in striking the charge that defendant was negligent in failing to signal his intention to stop was prejudicial and as a consequence plaintiff is entitled to a new trial.