811.585
Failure to secure motor vehicle; affirmative defense; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense
of failure to secure a motor vehicle if the person is driving or is in charge
of a motor vehicle and:
(a) The person
permits the vehicle to stand unattended on a highway without first doing all of
the following:
(A) Stopping the
engine.
(B) Turning the
front wheels to the curb or side of the highway when standing upon any grade.
(C) Locking the
ignition.
(D) Removing the
key from the ignition.
(E) Effectively
setting the brake on the vehicle; or
(b) The person is
the owner of an unattended motor vehicle parked on a highway in violation of
paragraph (a) of this subsection.
(2) It is an
affirmative defense to a prosecution of the owner of a vehicle under subsection
(1)(b) of this section that the use of the vehicle was not authorized by the
owner, either expressly or by implication.
(3) The offense
described in this section, failure to secure a motor vehicle, is a Class D
traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §676; 1985 c.16 §326; 1987 c.687 §7; 1995 c.383 §81]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases, 1991–2020 · leading case:
Maquiel v. Adkins, 27 P.3d 1050 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
Maquiel v. Adkins, 27 P.3d 1050 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 19× “[1] Plaintiff sought to prove that defendant was presumptively negligent under ORS 811.585(1) because he failed to park his vehicle in a manner consistent with the statute's requirements.”
Hammick v. Jacobs (D. Or. 2020).
· cites it 2× “, Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.585 (1) – and affirming the lower court’s jury instruction that a statutory violation “constitutes negligence in and of itself unless [the defendant proves] that he was acting as a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances”).”
Miller v. Miller, 808 P.2d 105 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
“550 to ORS 811.585 prohibit unnecessary stopping, standing or parking so as to impede the free flow of traffic; ORS 811.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.585(1) — 1 case
Maquiel v. Adkins, 27 P.3d 1050 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“[1] Plaintiff sought to prove that defendant was presumptively negligent under ORS 811.585(1) because he failed to park his vehicle in a manner consistent with the statute's requirements.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.585(1)(a)(B) — 1 case
Maquiel v. Adkins, 27 P.3d 1050 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“[1] Plaintiff sought to prove that defendant was presumptively negligent under ORS 811.585(1) because he failed to park his vehicle in a manner consistent with the statute's requirements.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.585(l)(a)(B) — 1 case
Maquiel v. Adkins, 27 P.3d 1050 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“[1] Plaintiff sought to prove that defendant was presumptively negligent under ORS 811.585(1) because he failed to park his vehicle in a manner consistent with the statute's requirements.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.