Court Opinion

ID: 9542686
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:37:23.208348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:08:40.937843
License: Public Domain

TONGUE, J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the result of the majority opinion, but solely for the reason that the basic issue of “joint supervision and control,” as again presented for decision in this case, has been previously decided adversely to the plaintiff by the majority of this court in Green v. Shell Oil Co., 271 Or 362, 532 P2d 224, 227 (1975); Miller v. River Bend Sand & Gravel, 267 Or 331, 334, 516 P2d 1300 (1973); Vetter v. Pacific Motor Truck Co., 266 Or 196, 202, 512 P2d 785 (1973); Tidyman v. Industrial Air Products Co., 266 Or 170, 175, 512 P2d 792 (1973); Counts v. Wakefield, 261 Or 11, 14, 492 P2d 278 (1971); Bass v. Dunthorpe Motor Trans., 258 Or 409, 415, 484 P2d 319 (1971); and also in other previous cases. In the above-named cases I also specially concurred in the result for the same reason.
Now that the legislature has repealed the statute relating to “joint supervision and control” it would appear that this may be the. last of such cases. I agree, however, that the 1975 statute, Oregon Laws 1975, ch 152, is not retroactive in its application.