gross negligence standard in Oregon

2016Chartrand, 298 Or at 697 .

2016Chartrand, 298 Or at 697 .

2016According to the court, once the gross negligence standard was removed from HB 3152, section 1 of the bill, as finally approved, “codified the holding in Campbell.” Id. at 38-39 .

2016According to the court, once the gross negligence standard was removed from HB 3152, section 1 of the bill, as finally approved, “codified the holding in Campbell.” Id. at 38-39 .

2016Comments made at the committee hearings on the bill repeatedly stated preferences for a common-law negligence standard and for rejecting a gross negligence standard.17 It is true that the proponents of HB 3152 and perhaps some legislators may have understood this court’s decision in Campbell as having prescribed a neg- ligence per se standard for alcohol providers who serve visi- bly intoxicated persons.18 However, those statements do not Restaurant & Beverage Association) (supporting concept of limited liability in HB 3152 because recent court decisions had gone beyond law’s intent); id. (sta

2016Comments made at the committee hearings on the bill repeatedly stated preferences for a common-law negligence standard and for rejecting a gross negligence standard.17 It is true that the proponents of HB 3152 and perhaps some legislators may have understood this court’s decision in Campbell as having prescribed a neg- ligence per se standard for alcohol providers who serve visi- bly intoxicated persons.18 However, those statements do not Restaurant & Beverage Association) (supporting concept of limited liability in HB 3152 because recent court decisions had gone beyond law’s intent); id. (sta

2016Dietz stated that the amendments to delete the gross negligence standard were “to get back towards the common-law negligence test, not necessarily that we want to go all the way back to a point where licens- ees could be unfairly or inequitably held liable for service to patrons.” Id.

2016Id.

2010In Burghardt v. Olson, 223 Or. 155 , 349 P.2d 792 , adh'd to on recons., 223 Or. 155 , 354 P.2d 871 (1960), the defendant challenged a jury verdict that found that the defendant's driving was reckless.

2010In Burghardt v. Olson, 223 Or. 155 , 349 P.2d 792 , adh'd to on recons., 223 Or. 155 , 354 P.2d 871 (1960), the defendant challenged a jury verdict that found that the defendant's driving was reckless.

2010Williamson v. McKenna, 223 Or. 366, 387-89 , 354 P.2d 56 (1960).

2010Williamson v. McKenna, 223 Or. 366, 387-89 , 354 P.2d 56 (1960).

2003In other words, ‘gross negligence,’ far from being a static concept subject to mechanical application, is one that requires careful consideration of the facts to determine if the party seeking reformation is, both in light of his or her own actions and as a matter of equity, entitled to such relief.” 177 Or App at 54 (citations omitted). 21 See also Mariah Investments, Ltd. v. McCabe, 163 Or App 91 , 986 P2d 1209 (1999) (aff'd by an equally divided court) (Wollheim, J., concurring), rev den, 329 Or 651 (2000) (describing the gross negligence inquiry in the context of a rescission claim).

2003In other words, ‘gross negligence,’ far from being a static concept subject to mechanical application, is one that requires careful consideration of the facts to determine if the party seeking reformation is, both in light of his or her own actions and as a matter of equity, entitled to such relief.” 177 Or App at 54 (citations omitted). 21 See also Mariah Investments, Ltd. v. McCabe, 163 Or App 91 , 986 P2d 1209 (1999) (aff'd by an equally divided court) (Wollheim, J., concurring), rev den, 329 Or 651 (2000) (describing the gross negligence inquiry in the context of a rescission claim).