Court Opinion

ID: 9536649
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:04:17.520898+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:53:51.591246
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
*137W. H. Morrison, of Portland, and Howard K. Beebe, Maguire, Shields & Bailey, of Portland, attorneys for appellant.
JohnH. Buttler, of Portland, and Cake, Jaureguy & Hardy, of Portland, for petition.
Before Warner, Chief Justice, and Rossman, Latourette and Perry, Justices.
On Petition eor Rehearing
LATOURETTE, J.
In plaintiff’s petition for rehearing we are told, in effect, that had we followed the case of Cockerham v. Potts, 143 Or 80, 20 P2d 423, we would have been compelled to affirm the trial court on the gross negligence question. The brief states:
“If, in the calm of appellate judicial consideration, this Court can validly distinguish the instant case from Cockerham, we invite the Court to do so. If a valid distinction cannot be made, respondent submits that the judgment below must be affirmed or Cockerham must be overruled. In any event, Cockerham v. Potts, may not be completely ignored.”
In the opinion handed down we stated:
“* * * Whether gross negligence applies in a given case depends upon its own particular facts and circumstances.”
*138It was our view that the facts and circumstances of the Cockerham case were so entirely different from the facts in this case that it was not necessary to distinguish the two. In the Cockerham case it is stated:
“* * * the Lorett car approached the intersection at a rate of speed of 25 miles per hour on the wrong or left side of the road and very close to the edge of the graveled road; that she proceeded on to the Dayton-MeMinnville highway intersection at a speed of more than 15 miles per hour, going north of the intersection and on the Dayton-MeMinnville highway on the left side of that highway, without any care or caution, without looking for traffic or cars on the Dayton-MeMinnville pavement, when she could and should have approached the intersection on the right side of the graveled road, and if she had done so in a cautious manner she could have been seen and avoided by Potts; that she could and would have seen the Potts car for a distance of approximately 45 feet away when she reached the pavement; that if she had had the Ford car under proper control, the collision could have been avoided, and that she was grossly reckless and negligent, and entirely failed to observe the ordinary rules and dangers of the road. Nowhere in the record can we find any testimony indicating that Miss Lorett exercised any ordinary care. She evidently thought that there was no traffic on the Dayton-MeMinnville highway at that time and place and that it was not necessary to use any care. ’ ’
From the above it will be seen that the defendant approached the intersection on the wrong side of the road, cut the corner and proceeded Northerly on the left side of the Dayton-MeMinnville highway directly into the path of the oncoming car, without ever seeing it until the point of collision, or without using any care whatsoever.
*139In the case presently before us, defendant Hong was on the right side of the road throughout the course of his travel and slackened his speed some 225 feet away from the intersection at the warning sign to between 30 and 35 miles per hour. When he was within 25 feet of the intersection he looked to the North and saw the Houglum car coming some 75 feet away and thought he could cross the intersection before the Houglum car reached the same.
The distinction between the two cases is obvious.
We have considered the other matters raised in the petition and are of the opinion that the result reached is correct.
Petition denied.