Kruse v. Fitzpatrick

I dissent for the reason that I consider the majority opinion to be contrary to the reasoning of the majority of this court in Jewett v. Kosydar, 266 Or 258, 260-261, 512 P2d 995 (1973), which reasoning was reaffirmed in Hankins v. Bates, 271 Or 676, 680, 534 P2d 170 (1975).

The majority makes the plaintiff’s status as a guest or nonguest completely dependent upon whether plaintiff had intentional contact with defendant’s vehicle. Such a choice is purely arbitrary and artificial, a method of determination we expressly rejected in Jewett v. Kosydar, supra (266 Or 258).

We reasoned in Jewett:

"* *…