Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
16 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1957–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Lawson v. Hokegreen2 sentences2013See generally Lawson, 339 Or at 262 (noting “the indisputable proposition that, in the early years of this state’s history, a plaintiff’s contributory negligence was an absolute bar to recovery for the negligent acts of another”). 11 Moreover, under the prevailing law at the time that the state’s constitution was adopted, a plaintiff was required to prove not only that his or her injuries were caused by a defendant’s negligence but also that his or her own actions did not contribute to those injuries. 2013See generally Lawson [v. Hoke], 339 Or [253, 262, 119 P3d 210 (2005)] (noting ‘the indisputable proposition that, in the early years of this state’s history, a plaintiff’s contributory negligence was an absolute bar to recovery for the negligent acts of another.’) “Moreover, under the prevailing law at the time that the state’s constitution was adopted, a plaintiff was required to prove not only that his or her injuries were caused by a defendant’s negligence but also that his or her own actions did not contribute to those injuries. | 3 | 3 |
Dippold v. Cathlamet Timber Co.green2 sentences1969See Dippold et al v. Cathlamet Timber Co., 1924, 111 Or 199 , 225 P 202 . 1969See Dippold et al v. Cathlamet Timber Co., 1924, 111 Or 199 , 225 P 202 . | 2 | 2 |
Towe v. Sacagawea, Inc.green2 sentences2017Towe v. Sacagawea, Inc., 357 Or 74, 106-07 , 347 P3d 766 (2015) (“Under the contributory negligence doctrine, any negligence by a plaintiff was a complete bar to the plaintiff’s ability to recover damages from a defendant who was also at fault, regardless of the degree of the plaintiffs or the defendant’s negligence.”). 2017Towe v. Sacagawea, Inc., 357 Or 74, 106-07 , 347 P3d 766 (2015) (“Under the contributory negligence doctrine, any negligence by a plaintiff was a complete bar to the plaintiff’s ability to recover damages from a defendant who was also at fault, regardless of the degree of the plaintiffs or the defendant’s negligence.”). | 1 | 1 |
Maser v. Kleingreen2 sentences2015See Maser v. Klein, 224 Or 300, 304 , 356 P2d 151 (1960), overruled in part on other grounds by Godell v. Johnson, 244 Or 587 , 592 n 8, 418 P2d 505 (1966) (“Contributory negligence, briefly stated, is any negligence alleged against the plaintiff which contributes as a proximate cause of the accident. * * * If it contributes in any degree as the proximate cause of the accident and injuries, that is sufficient to bar recovery on the part of the plaintiff”). 2015See Maser v. Klein, 224 Or 300, 304 , 356 P2d 151 (1960), overruled in part on other grounds by Godell v. Johnson, 244 Or 587 , 592 n 8, 418 P2d 505 (1966) (“Contributory negligence, briefly stated, is any negligence alleged against the plaintiff which contributes as a proximate cause of the accident. * * * If it contributes in any degree as the proximate cause of the accident and injuries, that is sufficient to bar recovery on the part of the plaintiff”). | 1 | 1 |
Godell v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2015See Maser v. Klein, 224 Or 300, 304 , 356 P2d 151 (1960), overruled in part on other grounds by Godell v. Johnson, 244 Or 587 , 592 n 8, 418 P2d 505 (1966) (“Contributory negligence, briefly stated, is any negligence alleged against the plaintiff which contributes as a proximate cause of the accident. * * * If it contributes in any degree as the proximate cause of the accident and injuries, that is sufficient to bar recovery on the part of the plaintiff”). 2015See Maser v. Klein, 224 Or 300, 304 , 356 P2d 151 (1960), overruled in part on other grounds by Godell v. Johnson, 244 Or 587 , 592 n 8, 418 P2d 505 (1966) (“Contributory negligence, briefly stated, is any negligence alleged against the plaintiff which contributes as a proximate cause of the accident. * * * If it contributes in any degree as the proximate cause of the accident and injuries, that is sufficient to bar recovery on the part of the plaintiff”). | 1 | 1 |
Rochester v. Katalangreen1 sentence2010See, e.g., Musachia v. Rosman, 190 So 2d 47, 50 (Fla Dist Ct App 1966) (concluding that a contributory negligence defense was available when a patient died from an injury attributed to perforations in his small intestine when the patient left the hospital against his doctor’s advice and without being discharged and then proceeded to drink alcohol that may have contributed to the perforations); see also Rochester v. Katalan, 320 A2d 704, 708 (Del 1974) (determining that contributory negligence defense was appropriate where the decedent furnished incorrect information and faked symptoms to his m | 1 | 1 |
Woolston v. Wellsgreen2 sentences1990See Woolston v. Wells, 297 Or 548 , 687 P2d 144 (1984); Nylander v. State of Oregon, 292 Or 254 , 637 P2d 1286 (1981). 1990See Woolston v. Wells, 297 Or 548 , 687 P2d 144 (1984); Nylander v. State of Oregon, 292 Or 254 , 637 P2d 1286 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
Petroleum Carrier Corporation v. Gatesgreen1 sentence1978For the reasons stated in Koch v. Southern Pacific Co., 266 Or. 335 , 513 P.2d 770 (1973), we do not consider this to be a proper matter for expert testimony. [4] We agree, however, with one court's observation that: "Because of the very nature of the comparative negligence doctrine, situations in which directed verdicts will be appropriate will occur with even less frequency [than under the contributory negligence rule], particularly in cases where the plaintiff's own negligence is in issue." Petroleum Carrier Corporation v. Gates, 330 So.2d 751, 752 (Fla.App. 1976). [5] After the date of the | 1 | 1 |
Shamrock Fuel & Oil Sales Co. v. Tunksgreen1 sentence1973Shamrock Fuel & Oil Sales Co. v. Tunks, 416 SW2d 779, 785 (Tex 1967). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Gutierrez-Medina
green
2 sentences2022State v. Gutierrez-Medina, 365 Or 79, 84 , 442 P3d 183 (2019). 2022State v. Gutierrez-Medina, 365 Or 79, 84 , 442 P3d 183 (2019). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Howell v. Boyle
green
1 sentence2013The majority then relies on a historical analysis of the contributory negligence doctrine as practiced in the nineteenth century for its conclusion that, even if I am correct that the Remedy Clause mandates a restorative remedy, this plaintiff “would have been entitled to recover nothing” in 1857. 353 Or at 385 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Stone v. Oregon City Manufacturing Co.
neutral
2 sentences2005Co., 4 Or. 52 , 1870 WL 728 (1870) (under doctrine of contributory negligence, employee who was injured in workplace by equipment that his employer had negligently maintained would be denied recovery if evidence tended to show that employee could have avoided injury had he been more attentive). 2005Co., 4 Or 52 (1870) (under doctrine of contributory negligence, employee who was injured in workplace by equipment that his employer had negligently maintained would be denied recovery if evidence tended to show that employee could have avoided injury had he been more attentive). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Nylander v. State
green
2 sentences1990See Woolston v. Wells, 297 Or 548 , 687 P2d 144 (1984); Nylander v. State of Oregon, 292 Or 254 , 637 P2d 1286 (1981). 1990See Woolston v. Wells, 297 Or 548 , 687 P2d 144 (1984); Nylander v. State of Oregon, 292 Or 254 , 637 P2d 1286 (1981). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Huff v. Bretz
green
2 sentences1982Huff v. Bretz, 285 Or 507 , 592 P2d 204 (1979). 1982Huff v. Bretz, 285 Or 507 , 592 P2d 204 (1979). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Koch v. Southern Pacific Company
green
2 sentences1978For the reasons stated in Koch v. Southern Pacific Co., 266 Or. 335 , 513 P.2d 770 (1973), we do not consider this to be a proper matter for expert testimony. [4] We agree, however, with one court's observation that: "Because of the very nature of the comparative negligence doctrine, situations in which directed verdicts will be appropriate will occur with even less frequency [than under the contributory negligence rule], particularly in cases where the plaintiff's own negligence is in issue." Petroleum Carrier Corporation v. Gates, 330 So.2d 751, 752 (Fla.App. 1976). [5] After the date of the 1978For the reasons stated in Koch v. Southern Pacific Co., 266 Or. 335 , 513 P.2d 770 (1973), we do not consider this to be a proper matter for expert testimony. [4] We agree, however, with one court's observation that: "Because of the very nature of the comparative negligence doctrine, situations in which directed verdicts will be appropriate will occur with even less frequency [than under the contributory negligence rule], particularly in cases where the plaintiff's own negligence is in issue." Petroleum Carrier Corporation v. Gates, 330 So.2d 751, 752 (Fla.App. 1976). [5] After the date of the | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Walsh v. Oregon Railway & Navigation Co.
green
2 sentences1970In Walsh v. Oregon Ry & Navigation Co., 10 Or. 250 (1882), it was first recognized by this court that the law of Oregon included the doctrine of contributory negligence. 1970In Walsh v. Oregon Ry & Navigation Co., 10 Or 250 (1882), it was first recognized by this court that the law of Oregon included the doctrine of contributory negligence. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Macdonald v. O'Reilly
green
1 sentence1957It was said that the contributory negligence which will bar a recovery “must be that of the person from whom the cause of action is derived, or the beneficiary, or some one standing in such a relation to the beneficiary that the maxim, Qui facit per alium facit per se, may be invoked.” 45 Or at 593 . | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.