Court Opinion

ID: 9596606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:51:38.499748+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:26.397286
License: Public Domain

McALLISTER, J.,
dissenting.
In my dissenting opinion in Barnum v. Williams, 264 Or at 71, 81, 504 P2d 122, 127 (1972) I pointed out that the majority had incorrectly interpreted our prior cases involving motor vehicle operational statutes. In the present case the majority overrules our prior decisions involving safety equipment statutes. In my opinion the two lines of eases, although applying different standards, were, prior to Barnum, entirely consistent. For the reasons stated in my dissent in that case, I cannot join the majority in abandoning the rule of' negligence per se.
*453Moreover, in my opinion, the defendant failed to meet his burden of proof that he could not even, by the exercise of the highest degree of care, discover the defect in the brake drum.
I dissent.