Bray v. American Property Management Corp.
Decision Date | 10 November 1999 |
Parties | Judy M. BRAY, Personal Representative for the Estate of Roy William Bray, Respondent—Cross-Appellant, v. AMERICAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORP., an Oregon corporation, Appellant—Cross-Respondent, and Joseph E. Weston, Marilyn Weston and American Property Management Corp., a general partnership doing business as Weston Investment Co., Defendants. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Thomas M. Christ, Portland, and Mitchell, Lang & Smith for appellant-cross-respondent.
Dennis H. Elliott, Portland, and Elliott & Park for respondent-cross-appellant.
Before De MUNIZ, Presiding Judge, and HASELTON and LINDER, Judges.
This wrongful death case is before us on remand, Bray v. American Property Management Corp., 329 Or. 317, 984 P.2d 854 (1999), following the Supreme Court's decisions in Fearing v. Bucher, 328 Or. 367, 977 P.2d 1163 (1999), and Lourim v. Swensen, 328 Or. 380, 977 P.2d 1157 (1999). In our original opinion, we concluded that the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for a directed verdict and, specifically, that defendant was not vicariously liable for its employee's conduct in stabbing and killing plaintiff's decedent. Bray v. American Property Management Corp., 156 Or.App. 356, 965 P.2d 426 (1998), rem'd 329 Or. 317, 984 P.2d 854 (1999). On reconsideration, we conclude that our holding was incorrect in light of Fearing and Lourim. We further reject defendant's other, previously unaddressed, assignments of error. Accordingly, we affirm.
The material facts, viewed most favorably to plaintiff as the party prevailing at trial, were recounted in our previous opinion:
As personal representative of her husband's estate, plaintiff brought this wrongful death action, alleging that defendant, as Davis's employer, was vicariously liable for Davis's conduct. At trial, defendant moved for a directed verdict, arguing that plaintiff's proof was legally insufficient to satisfy the second and third elements of the three-part test for vicarious liability set out in Chesterman v. Barmon, 305 Or. 439, 442, 753 P.2d 404 (1988). The court denied that motion, and the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff.
On appeal, we reversed, concluding that, although the evidence permitted a finding that Davis was motivated, at least in part, to serve defendant, no reasonable juror could conclude that Chesterman's third element was satisfied—that is, that the Chesterman, 305 Or. at 442, 753 P.2d 404. We concluded:
"Although McCracken had told Davis not to allow Bray to park in the garage after the two had been involved in a heated verbal exchange the day before, a reasonable juror could not conclude that Davis's killing of Bray was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of McCracken's directive." Bray, 156 Or.App. at 365, 965 P.2d 4261
But see 156 Or.App. at 368, 370, 965 P.2d 426 (De Muniz, P.J., dissenting) () (emphasis in original).
Plaintiff sought review, and, while review was pending, the Supreme Court issued its opinions in Fearing and Lourim. The Supreme Court subsequently vacated our decision and remanded to us for further consideration in light of those decisions. We now conclude that Fearing and Lourim dictate a different analysis than we initially applied and, hence, compel a different result.
In Fearing, the court concluded:
Similarly, in Lourim, the court concluded:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jane Doe 130 v. Archdiocese of Portland in Or.
...sufficient to satisfy all three Chesterman requirements.Id. at 386-387, 977 P.2d 1157. Similarly, in Bray v. American Prop. Mgmt. Corp., 164 Or.App. 134, 988 P.2d 933 (1999), the Oregon Court of Appeals applied the Fearing/Lourim standard to find an employer vicariously liable for its emplo......
-
State v. Roberts
...that the potential for unfair prejudice arising from this type of evidence is "manifest," Bray v. American Property Management Corp. , 164 Or. App. 134, 144, 988 P.2d 933 (1999), and the word's inflammatory quality invites jurors to convict defendant for reasons unrelated to the evidence. S......
-
Torres v. Persson
...a principle of law drawn from relevant appellate decisions. 365 Or. at 218, 445 P.3d 281 ; see also Bray v. American Property Management Corp. , 164 Or. App. 134, 142-43, 988 P.2d 933 (1999), rev. den. , 330 Or. 331, 6 P.3d 1101 (2000) (holding that it was not error for trial court to give ......
-
Schmidt v. Archdiocese of Portland
...189 Or.App. 1, 73 P.3d 930 (2003). Conversely, plaintiff's claim is distinguishable from the claim in Bray v. American Property Management Corp., 164 Or. App. 134, 988 P.2d 933 (1999), rev. den., 330 Or. 331, 6 P.3d 1101 (2000), in which there was evidence from which the jury could find tha......