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.
9 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Woolston v. Wellsgreen2 sentences2021The possessor must exercise that standard of care either to eliminate the condition creating that risk or to warn any foreseeable invitee of the risk so as to enable the invitee to avoid the harm. *510 “The invitee is required to exercise that same standard of care in avoiding harm from a condition of the premises of which he knows, or, in the exercise of that standard of care, of which he should know.” Woolston, 297 Or at 557-58 (internal citation omitted; emphasis added). 2016The possessor must exercise that standard of care either to eliminate the condition creating that risk or to warn any foreseeable invitee of the risk so as to enable the invitee to avoid the harm.” 297 Or at 558 . | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jensen v. Kacy's Markets, Inc.
green
2 sentences2011The possessor must exercise that standard of care either to eliminate the condition creating that risk or to warn any foreseeable invitee of the risk so as to enable the invitee to avoid the harm.” Accordingly, property owners are “liable to invitees only for conditions that create an unreasonable risk of harm to the invitee.” Glorioso v. Ness, 191 Or App 637, 643 , 83 P3d 914 , rev den, 336 Or 657 (2004); Jensen v. Kacy’s Markets, Inc., 91 Or App 285, 288 , 754 P2d 624 , rev den, 306 Or 413 (1988). 2011The possessor must exercise that standard of care either to eliminate the condition creating that risk or to warn any foreseeable invitee of the risk so as to enable the invitee to avoid the harm.” Accordingly, property owners are “liable to invitees only for conditions that create an unreasonable risk of harm to the invitee.” Glorioso v. Ness, 191 Or App 637, 643 , 83 P3d 914 , rev den, 336 Or 657 (2004); Jensen v. Kacy’s Markets, Inc., 91 Or App 285, 288 , 754 P2d 624 , rev den, 306 Or 413 (1988). | 4 | 2000–2011 |
Andrews v. R.W. Hays Co.
green
2 sentences2004Hays Co., 166 Or App 494, 503 , 998 P2d 774 (2000) (quoting Jensen v. Kacy’s Markets, Inc., 91 Or App 285, 288 , 754 P2d 624 , rev den, 306 Or 413 (1988)). 2004Hays Co., 166 Or App 494, 503 , 998 P2d 774 (2000) (quoting Jensen v. Kacy’s Markets, Inc., 91 Or App 285, 288 , 754 P2d 624 , rev den, 306 Or 413 (1988)). | 2 | 2000–2004 |
Fieux v. Cardiovascular & Thoracic Clinic, P.C.
green
2 sentences2011The possessor must exercise that standard of care either to eliminate the condition creating that risk or to warn any foreseeable invitee of the risk so as to enable the invitee to avoid the harm.” Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of circumstantial evidence that permits a jury to infer both negligence and causation if the harm that occurs is “ ‘of a kind that which more probably than not would not have occurred in the absence of negligence on the part of the defendant’ ” McKee Electric Co. v. Carson Oil Co., 301 Or 339, 353 , 723 P2d 288 (1986) (quoting Watzig v. Tobin, 292 Or 645, 649 , 642 P2d 65 2011The possessor must exercise that standard of care either to eliminate the condition creating that risk or to warn any foreseeable invitee of the risk so as to enable the invitee to avoid the harm.” Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of circumstantial evidence that permits a jury to infer both negligence and causation if the harm that occurs is “ ‘of a kind that which more probably than not would not have occurred in the absence of negligence on the part of the defendant’ ” McKee Electric Co. v. Carson Oil Co., 301 Or 339, 353 , 723 P2d 288 (1986) (quoting Watzig v. Tobin, 292 Or 645, 649 , 642 P2d 65 | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Watzig v. Tobin
green
2 sentences2011The possessor must exercise that standard of care either to eliminate the condition creating that risk or to warn any foreseeable invitee of the risk so as to enable the invitee to avoid the harm.” Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of circumstantial evidence that permits a jury to infer both negligence and causation if the harm that occurs is “ ‘of a kind that which more probably than not would not have occurred in the absence of negligence on the part of the defendant’ ” McKee Electric Co. v. Carson Oil Co., 301 Or 339, 353 , 723 P2d 288 (1986) (quoting Watzig v. Tobin, 292 Or 645, 649 , 642 P2d 65 2011The possessor must exercise that standard of care either to eliminate the condition creating that risk or to warn any foreseeable invitee of the risk so as to enable the invitee to avoid the harm.” Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of circumstantial evidence that permits a jury to infer both negligence and causation if the harm that occurs is “ ‘of a kind that which more probably than not would not have occurred in the absence of negligence on the part of the defendant’ ” McKee Electric Co. v. Carson Oil Co., 301 Or 339, 353 , 723 P2d 288 (1986) (quoting Watzig v. Tobin, 292 Or 645, 649 , 642 P2d 65 | 1 | 2011–2011 |
McKee Electric Co. v. Carson Oil Co.
green
2 sentences2011The possessor must exercise that standard of care either to eliminate the condition creating that risk or to warn any foreseeable invitee of the risk so as to enable the invitee to avoid the harm.” Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of circumstantial evidence that permits a jury to infer both negligence and causation if the harm that occurs is “ ‘of a kind that which more probably than not would not have occurred in the absence of negligence on the part of the defendant’ ” McKee Electric Co. v. Carson Oil Co., 301 Or 339, 353 , 723 P2d 288 (1986) (quoting Watzig v. Tobin, 292 Or 645, 649 , 642 P2d 65 2011The possessor must exercise that standard of care either to eliminate the condition creating that risk or to warn any foreseeable invitee of the risk so as to enable the invitee to avoid the harm.” Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of circumstantial evidence that permits a jury to infer both negligence and causation if the harm that occurs is “ ‘of a kind that which more probably than not would not have occurred in the absence of negligence on the part of the defendant’ ” McKee Electric Co. v. Carson Oil Co., 301 Or 339, 353 , 723 P2d 288 (1986) (quoting Watzig v. Tobin, 292 Or 645, 649 , 642 P2d 65 | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Glorioso v. Ness
green
2 sentences2011The possessor must exercise that standard of care either to eliminate the condition creating that risk or to warn any foreseeable invitee of the risk so as to enable the invitee to avoid the harm.” Accordingly, property owners are “liable to invitees only for conditions that create an unreasonable risk of harm to the invitee.” Glorioso v. Ness, 191 Or App 637, 643 , 83 P3d 914 , rev den, 336 Or 657 (2004); Jensen v. Kacy’s Markets, Inc., 91 Or App 285, 288 , 754 P2d 624 , rev den, 306 Or 413 (1988). 2011The possessor must exercise that standard of care either to eliminate the condition creating that risk or to warn any foreseeable invitee of the risk so as to enable the invitee to avoid the harm.” Accordingly, property owners are “liable to invitees only for conditions that create an unreasonable risk of harm to the invitee.” Glorioso v. Ness, 191 Or App 637, 643 , 83 P3d 914 , rev den, 336 Or 657 (2004); Jensen v. Kacy’s Markets, Inc., 91 Or App 285, 288 , 754 P2d 624 , rev den, 306 Or 413 (1988). | 1 | 2011–2011 |