Aircraft and watercraft guest passengers
- definitions
Source:
Section 30.115 — Aircraft and watercraft guest passengers; definitions, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors030.html.
Notes of Decisions
In general
Evidence of driver’s drinking substantial amount of beer, known to the guest, and nothing more, will support submission of contributory negligence to jury. Trotter v. McKellip, 265 Or 334, 509 P2d 31 (1973)
“Reckless disregard” means act or failure to act that creates obvious danger with high probability of serious physical harm. Sherman v. McAllister, 265 Or 630, 509 P2d 1176 (1973)
It is unnecessary for plaintiff to show that defendant was intoxicated in order to obtain an instruction which informs the jury that it may consider defendant’s prior drinking for whatever effect it might have had on the issues of lookout and control. Gatten v. Widman, 269 Or 112, 523 P2d 1007 (1974)
This section does not deny injured passengers equal protection of the law. Duerst v. Limbocker, 269 Or 252, 525 P2d 99 (1974); Reinholtz v. Ressler, 269 Or 249, 525 P2d 55 (1974); Salmon v. Miller, 269 Or 267, 525 P2d 104 (1974)
A plaintiff guest should be entitled to plead either or both intoxication or gross negligence and be allowed to have either or both theories submitted to the jury if supported by the evidence. Jenson v. Spencer, 269 Or 411, 525 P2d 153 (1974)
This section will not bar an action for loss of consortium with a spouse; overruling Whang v. Hong, 206 Or 125, 290 P2d 185, 291 P2d 270 (1955). Naber v. Thompson, 274 Or 309, 546 P2d 467 (1976)
Comparative fault statute, [former] ORS 18.470, applies to cases governed by this section. Johnson v. Tilden, 278 Or 11, 520 P2d 1188 (1977)
Guest passenger laws of British Columbia should have been applied where Oregon’s involvement was merely that of forum state and Oregon’s policy did not conflict with British Columbia policy. Fisher v. Huck, 50 Or App 635, 624 P2d 177 (1981)
Guest
There may be benefit to defendant (other than social) which keeps plaintiff from being guest, even though benefit does not qualify as payment because it is not “substantial benefit in a material or business sense.” Havlina v. Guaranty Chevrolet Co., 265 Or 562, 509 P2d 415 (1973)
If plaintiff was riding as “favor” to operator but only in sense that it was in furtherance of mutually desirable social relationship, plaintiff would be guest. Havlina v. Guaranty Chevrolet Co., 265 Or 562, 509 P2d 415 (1973)
Question of plaintiff’s status as guest passenger, due to the possibility of benefit conferred upon defendant, is properly left to jury. Ghafoor v. Taj, 267 Or 205, 516 P2d 75 (1973)
When plaintiff was swimming from defendant’s boat for the purpose of waterskiing behind it, she was still a guest passenger. Hankins v. Bates, 271 Or 676, 534 P2d 170 (1975)
Two elements must coexist to create host-guest relationship (1) absence of substantial benefit to host; and (2) invitation motivated by host’s spirit of hospitality. Baker v. Stutzman, 273 Or 530, 542 P2d 478 (1975)
Where trip of over 400 miles at night was undertaken solely at request of and accommodation for plaintiff, payment of $10 for gas did not remove plaintiff from guest passenger status. Fullerton v. White, 273 Or 649, 542 P2d 1017 (1975)
Person is not being “transported” where that person has made no voluntary contact with vehicle. Kruse v. Fitzpatrick, 278 Or 185, 563 P2d 680 (1977)
Where accident occurred in British Columbia but both host and guest were Oregon residents, guest passenger statute applied because, while Oregon had interest in protection of Oregon hosts, British Columbia’s interest in ability of its residents to obtain compensation was unaffected by application of Oregon law. Tower v. Schwabe, 284 Or 105, 585 P2d 662 (1978)
Section requiring airplane guest passengers to prove gross negligence to recover for injuries without placing corresponding burden on motor vehicle and other guest passengers does not violate Article I, section 20 of Oregon Constitution or Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses of Fourteenth Amendment. Urton v. Hudson, 101 Or App 147, 790 P2d 12 (1990), Sup Ct review denied
Gross negligence
Although it may be shown that occurrence was preceded by several acts of ordinary negligence, it is only when all of these acts combined with existing circumstances show a foolhardy attitude on part of driver that gross negligence has been established. Bottom v. McClain, 260 Or 186, 489 P2d 940 (1971)
Proof of drinking and erratic driving prior to an accident, plus ordinary negligence, can equal gross negligence. Gatten v. Widman, 269 Or 112, 523 P2d 1007 (1974)
Defendant’s failure to keep a lookout, even if found by jury, would have been insufficient evidence of gross negligence. Salmon v. Miller, 269 Or 267, 525 P2d 104 (1974)
If there is evidence of substantial consumption of alcohol or evidence of consumption of a smaller amount but corroboration by external manifestations of such influence, then inference that the defendant’s conduct was affected by his consumption is allowed. Jenson v. Spencer, 269 Or 411, 525 P2d 153 (1974)
Mere inadvertence, brief inattention or error in judgment as to proper speed does not constitute gross negligence without some basis for inferring acts were done with reckless mental state or conscious indifference to safety of others. Smith v. Barry, 37 Or App 319, 587 P2d 483 (1978)
Evidence that defendant driver was warned by his passenger to cease his reckless driving, that defendant considered warnings, rejected them and continued to drive in the same manner was sufficient to support a finding of gross negligence under this section. Wootten v. Dillard, 286 Or 129, 592 P2d 1021 (1979)
Law Review Citations
51 OLR 469, 471 (1972); 8 WLJ 38, 46, 47 (1972); 54 OLR 491-495 (1975); 13 WLJ 53 (1976); 16 WLR 125 (1979); 18 WLR 329 (1982)
Up to date