Brown v. Fields
| Citation | 83 P.2d 144,160 Or. 23 |
| Parties | BROWN <I>v.</I> FIELDS ET AL. |
| Decision Date | 11 October 1938 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Oregon |
Who is liable for injury by car during demonstration or
instruction by dealer, note, 50 A.L.R. 1391. See, also, 5 Am
Jur. 689
42 C.J. Mot. Veh., § 873
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County.
Action by Florence G. Brown against Arthur L. Fields and another for injuries sustained in an automobile collision. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
REVERSED.
L.A. Recken, of Portland (Senn & Recken, of Portland, on the brief), for appellants.
K.C. Tanner, of Portland (Green, Tanner & Boesen, of Portland, on the brief), for respondent.
This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from a collision between an automobile in which plaintiff was riding and one driven by Charles Walsborn and owned by the defendants doing business under the name of Fields Motor Car Company. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendants appeal.
1. The principal question for review is whether there is any substantial evidence to support the judgment. Did the court err in denying defendant's motions for a nonsuit and a directed verdict? In view of such assignment of error, the statement of facts will be made in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
The defendants as co-partners were engaged in the business of selling new and second-hand automobiles in the city of Portland. According to the theory of plaintiff, Charles Walsborn, a young man 18 years of age who was a prospective purchaser of an automobile, went to the Fields Motor Car Company's place of business and was given permission to "test out" one of the cars which the company had for sale. Young Walsborn was accompanied by his older brother Alfred who was 24 years of age. Defendants contend that their salesman dealt only with the older brother but we are not concerned with such conflict in the evidence. No inquiry was made by defendants as to the experience or competency of Charles Walsborn to drive a car, although it appears from the record that Charles, at such time, had not only an operator's license but a chauffeur's license permitting him to drive automobiles on the streets and highways of the state of Oregon.
After the automobile was inspected and the terms of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wyckoff v. Mutual Life Ins. Co.
...Hull, 152 Or. 470, 53 P. (2d) 48, 54 P. (2d) 290 (1936); Kantola v. Lovell Auto Co., 157 Or. 534, 72 P. (2d) 61 (1937); Brown v. Fields, 160 Or. 23, 83 P. (2d) 144 (1938); Bunnell v. Parelius (supra); Allum v. Ball, 168 Or. 577, 124 P. (2d) 533 (1942). In Brown v. Fields (supra) though the ......
-
Saunders v. Prue
...... (La.), 142 So. 301; Saunders Drive-It-Yourself Co. v. Walker (Ky.), 284 S.W. 1088; Eklof v. Waterson et. al. (Ore.), 285 P. 201; Brown v. Fields et al., . 83 P.2d 144. (2) There being no evidence that the defendant,. DeWitt Chevrolet Company, was negligent in intrusting its. ......
-
Palmer v. Van Petten Lumber Co.
......at 51, 368 P.2d at 398. . 3 Brown v. Fields, 160 Or. 23, 29, 83 P.2d 144, 146 (1938). The court held that the question of agency is to be submitted to the jury unless 'the only ......
-
Tuite v. Union Pac. Stages, Inc.
....... Argued and Submitted April 14, 1955. . Decided June 2, 1955. . Page 335 . [204 Or. 569] Ray G. Brown, Portland, argued the cause and filed briefs for appellant. . L. A. Recken, Portland, argued the cause for respondent Russell. On ...Johnson, 155 Or. 583, 65 P.2d 661; Brown v. Fields, 160 Or. 23, 83 P.2d 144; Guedon v. Rooney, 160 Or. 621, 87 P.2d 209, 120 A.L.R. 1298; Oregon Briefs, vol. 1139, for 1938; § 1-911, O.C.L.A.; ......