Barnum v. Williams
Oregon Supreme Court
1DissentMcALLISTER, J.
Tlie majority concludes that under the present state of our law, the violation of a motor vehicle operational statute creates a disputable presumption of negligence which may be rebutted by a shoiving that the actor, in violating the statute, was acting reasonably. I disagree. In my opinion, our prior cases have established the stricter doctrine of negligence per se, with only limited exceptions.
In Marshall v. Olson, 102 Or 502, 202 P 736 (1922) the court first adopted the “emergency” exception to the rule that violation of an operational statute is negligence per se:
“* * * But this [rule of…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- McConnell v. HerronOregon Supreme Court · 1965
- Marshall v. OlsonOregon Supreme Court · 1922
- Raz v. MillsOregon Supreme Court · 1962
- Gum v. WoogeOregon Supreme Court · 1957
- Lavigne v. Portland Traction Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1946
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.