Gray v. Galantha
| Decision Date | 17 October 1963 |
| Citation | 385 P.2d 746,235 Or. 521 |
| Parties | Susan GRAY, by her guardian ad litem, Gerald B. Gray, Appellant, v. Judy GALANTHA, Respondent, and Louis B. Gay, Defendant. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Nathan J. Heath, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Gray, Fredrickson & Heath, Portland.
Edwin J. Peterson, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Tooze, Powers, Kerr, Tooze & Morrell, Portland.
Before McALLISTER, C. J., and ROSSMAN, SLOAN, GOODWIN, and LUSK, JJ.
Plaintiff, a guest passenger in an automobile, appeals from a judgment n. o. v. in favor of the defendant driver.
The sole assignment of error presents the question whether there was sufficient evidence of gross negligence, as that term has been defined in connection with ORS 30.110 (now ORS 30.115), to carry the case to the jury.
Plaintiff and defendant were fellow students, visiting together while home from college during the Christmas holidays. While driving with a third such companion, they were involved in an intersection collision with an automobile driven by one Louis Gay, who is no longer in the case.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the jury could have found these to be the facts: The collision occurred after the vehicle in which the plaintiff was riding stopped, or at least slowed nearly to a stop, in response to a stop sign and then proceeded slowly into the intersection. The plaintiff noticed the other auto approaching from her right, and called out some kind of warning to the defendant. The defendant, who had not previously seen the approaching vehicle, accelerated her automobile rapidly, perhaps in an attempt to 'beat' the oncoming automobile through the intersection. If such an attempt was made, it was not successful.
There is no evidence that any act of negligent driving preceded the meeting at the intersection. The evidence of negligence at the intersection tended to prove that the defendant maintained a defective lookout. There was also evidence that the defendant followed an erroneous course of action upon the discovery of peril, if she ever discovered it. The peril was in turn the product of the defendant's negligence in failing to maintain a proper lookout or in failing to yield the right of way to the other vehicle.
Under the test of gross negligence laid down in Williamson v. McKenna, 223...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wootten v. Dillard
...in our cases since that time as to whether the enactment of ORS 30.115 had any effect on the adoption of § 500. Gray v. Galantha, 235 Or. 521, 385 P.2d 746 (1963), apparently involved facts occurring prior to the enactment of ORS 30.115. The opinion assumes without discussion that "gross ne......
-
Steinbock v. Schiewe
...366, 354 P.2d 56; Burghardt v. Olson, 223 Or. 155, 349 P.2d 792, 354 P.2d 871; Nielsen v. Brown, 232 Or. 426, 374 P.2d 896; Gray v. Galantha, Or., 385 P.2d 746; State v. Betts, Or., 384 P.2d 198, 3 After the motor began to fail, it is possible that Steinbock could have avoided the crash by ......
-
State v. Hodgdon
...396 P.2d 205 (1964); Chard v. Rios, 238 Or. 74, 393 P.2d 156 (1964); Roehr v. Bean, 237 Or. 599, 392 P.2d 248 (1964); Gray v. Galantha, 235 Or. 521, 385 P.2d 746 (1963). The trial judge defined and described gross negligence with obvious care toward being sure that the jury would grasp the ......
-
Brown v. Bryant
...is evidence of negligence, but it will not suffice to establish gross negligence. Fletcher v. Walters, Or., 425 P.2d 539; Gray v. Galantha, 235 Or. 521, 385 P.2d 746; Burghardt v. Olson, 223 Or. 155, 349 P.2d 792, 354 P.2d 871; Williamson v. McKenna, 223 Or. 366, 354 P.2d The judgment is af......