Freund v. DeBuse
1973 Ore. LEXIS 477, 506 P.2d 491, 264 Or. 447 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party who violates a motor vehicle equipment statute is negligent as a matter of law, unless the party introduces evidence from which a trier of fact could find that they were acting as a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances.
Facts:
- The plaintiff was driving a car when it was struck from the rear by the defendant's pickup truck.
- The defendant's brakes had unexpectedly failed, causing the collision.
- The defendant had purchased the 1955 pickup truck approximately eight months prior to the incident.
- About three weeks before the collision, the defendant had adjusted the brakes to correct for normal wear of the brake lining.
- The defendant had no prior trouble with the brakes and had no warning of any possible defect.
- After the collision, the defendant examined the vehicle and discovered that a broken brake drum was the cause of the failure.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant in a state trial court to recover for injuries from a vehicle collision.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
- The plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the state's highest court, arguing the trial court erred by not instructing the jury that the defendant was negligent as a matter of law.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the violation of a motor vehicle equipment statute constitute negligence as a matter of law if the violator can provide evidence that they acted as a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances?
Opinions:
Majority - Denecke, J.
Yes. A party who violates a motor vehicle equipment statute is negligent as a matter of law unless that party can introduce evidence showing they acted as a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances. The court found no logical or empirical basis for treating violations of vehicle equipment statutes differently from vehicle operational statutes. Previous rulings that applied a higher standard of care for equipment violations, such as requiring proof that compliance was impossible or that the highest degree of care was used, are overruled. Here, the defendant’s evidence that he had performed recent routine maintenance and had no warning of a defect was sufficient for a jury to find he acted reasonably, as a prudent person is not required to disassemble their vehicle's wheels to inspect for latent defects.
Dissenting - McAllister, J.
No. The court should not abandon the established rule of negligence per se for violations of safety equipment statutes. The prior decisions applying different, stricter standards for equipment and operational statutes were consistent and correct. Furthermore, the defendant in this case failed to meet the burden of proving that the defect in the brake drum could not have been discovered even with the exercise of the highest degree of care.
Analysis:
This decision unifies Oregon's negligence per se doctrine for motor vehicle statutes, applying the same 'reasonably prudent person' standard to both equipment and operational violations. It overrules prior cases that had established a stricter, almost-absolute liability standard for equipment failures. The ruling shifts the focus from a rigid rule of law to a more flexible, fact-based inquiry, allowing a jury to determine fault based on the reasonableness of the defendant's conduct. This change makes it easier for defendants to avoid automatic liability for unexpected equipment failures, provided they can demonstrate they took reasonable care of their vehicle.
Unlock the full brief for Freund v. DeBuse