Gonzalez v. Curtis
| Decision Date | 27 May 1959 |
| Citation | 217 Or. 561,339 P.2d 713 |
| Parties | Herman GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. Ivan Allen CURTIS and Elena G. Curtis, Respondents. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
D. E. Kaufman and W. A. McMinimee, Tillamook, argued the cause for appellant. On the briefs were McMinimee & Kaufman.
George P. Winslow, Tillamook, argued the cause for respondents. On the brief were Winslow & Winslow.
Before McALLISTER, C. J., and PERRY, SLOAN and O'CONNELL, JJ.
The plaintiff, Herman Gonzalez, while riding as a guest in the automobile of the defendants, on July 23, 1954, at about 5:50 o'clock a. m., suffered personal injuries when the automobile, being driven by the defendant Ivan Allen Curtis in an easterly direction on Highway 6 about 34 miles east of Tillamook, Oregon, collided with the rear of a lumber truck travelling in the same direction.
Defendants moved for a directed verdict which was overruled, and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Later the trial court granted a motion of the defendants for judgment notwithstanding this verdict, and from this ruling the plaintiff appeals.
In passing upon the problem thus presented, the evidence must be construed most favorable to the plaintiff. Burrows v. Nash, 199 Or. 114, 259 P.2d 106, 107; Baird v. Boyer, 187 Or. 131, 210 P.2d 118.
Therefore, we are required to determine whether or not there is substantial evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the defendant Ivan Allen Curtis, driver of the automobile, was guilty of gross negligence toward the plaintiff. ORS 30.110. 1
The determination of such an issue is always difficult for gross negligence is not defined in the statute, nor can this court formulate a single comprehensive definition that will cover all situations. Each case must be determined on its own facts. Keefer v. Givens, 191 Or. 611, 232 P.2d 808; Turner, Adm'r v. McCready, 190 Or. 28, 222 P.2d 1010; Baird v. Boyer, supra.
However, certain guides have been established which point unerringly to the conclusion that to establish gross negligence (synonymous with great negligence) of the host-driver of an automobile the facts must disclose that the party charged has behaved in such a manner, under the existing circumstances, that it can be said by reasonable persons that only those persons who do not seem to care what happens to others or the foolhardy would have so acted. Gantenbein v. Huckleberry, 211 Or. 605, 315 P.2d 792.
The plaintiff argues that the defendant-driver was guilty of several acts of ordinary negligence and, therefore, this combination of acts presents a jury question; citing Burrows v. Nash, supra. It should be pointed out, in this connection, that, although it may be shown that the occurrence was preceded by several acts of ordinary negligence, it is only when all of these acts combined with the existing circumstances show a foolhardy attitude on the part of the driver that gross negligence has been established. Glascock v. Anderson, 198 Or. 499, 257 P.2d 617; Keefer v. Givens, supra; Turner v. McCready, supra.
With these established rules in mind, we shall consider the facts of this case.
Defendants, owners of a 1947 Chevrolet sedan, had picked up plaintiff and driven to Fairview, a small community near Tillamook Oregon. They had expected at this point to pick up another passenger, but this passenger did not appear, and they left Fairview to travel to an employment office in Washington County for the purpose of seeking employment as strawberry pickers. They had done this on prior occasions, usually leaving about 5 a. m. and returning about 6 p. m. The road they traveled is referred to as the Wilson River highway, a main traveled highway running generally upgrade and in an easterly direction from Tillamook to the summit of the coast range. This road is hard-surfaced, and at the point where the accident occurred is surfaced 23 feet wide with 15 foot shoulders.
On the morning of the accident, the weather was clear and the surface of the road dry. As the parties in the Chevrolet automobile proceeded eastward at a top speed of 55 miles per hour they overtook and passed two slower moving trucks. Because of the angle of the sun and the cut of the terrain shading the highway, at intervals along the highway they passed from bright sunlight into shadow. At the time the Chevrolet automobile was reaching the 'summit' where the accident occurred, in a shaded area, and unobserved by the defendant-driver, there was a large, heavily loaded lumber truck proceeding in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williamson v. McKenna
...also, Burrows v. Nash, 1953, 199 Or. 114, 259 P.2d 106, 110. The principle was more specifically delineated in Gonzalez v. Curtis, 1959, 217 Or. 561, 563-564, 339 P.2d 713, 714 where the court 'The plaintiff argues that the defendant-driver was guilty of several acts of ordinary negligence ......
-
Burghardt v. Olson
...191 Or. 611, 232 P.2d 808, and Turner v. McCready, 190 Or. 28, 222 P.2d 1010; Reese v. Bridgmon, Or., 340 P.2d 573; and Gonzalez v. Curtis, Or., 339 P.2d 713, concerning warnings given and ignored or the adoption of an 'I-don't-care-what-happens attitude' which could transmute the defendant......
-
Smith v. Barry
...cases found the series of negligent acts to be insufficient to establish gross negligence as a matter of law. Gonzalez v. Curtis et ux, 217 Or. 561, 564-66, 339 P.2d 713 (1959), affirmed a judgment N. o. v. in favor of defendant, who on a clear day collided with the rear of a log truck at t......
-
Bottom v. McClain
...also, Burrows v. Nash, 199 Or. 114, 259 P.2d (106) 110 (1953). The principle was more specifically delineated in Gonzalez v. Curtis, 217 Or. 561, 563--4, 339 P.2d 713 (1959) where the court 'The plaintiff argues that the defendant-driver was guilty of several acts of ordinary negligence and......