ENTRY FORM | ||
| CALENDAR STATUS: Active | ||
 | | |
SC Number: | | S059896 |
CA Number: | | A142775 |
Case Title: | | Billie Charles Towe v. Sacagawea, Inc. |
Date: | | 11/05/2012 |
Time: | | 01:30 PM |
Location: | | Supreme Court Courtroom |
Attorneys: | | J. Randolph Pickett on behalf of Billie Charles Towe Andrew Grade on behalf of Rick J. Matthews and Sherry Matthews David O. Wilson on behalf of Remax Ideal Properties, Inc. |
Comments: | | |
Statement of Issues: | | Billie Charles Towe v. Sacagawea, Inc., (S059896) (A142775) (appeal from Jackson County Circuit Court; opinion reported at 246 Or App 26, 264 P3d 184 (2011)). Plaintiff Billie Charles Towe has been granted review of a divided Court of Appeals decision that affirmed a trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendants Rick J. Matthews and Sherry Matthews, dba Mountain View Rock (Mountain View), and Re/Max Ideal Properties, Inc. (Re/Max), based on alternative grounds than those relied on by the trial court. On review, the issues are: (1) Is a property owner potentially liable for injuries suffered by a motorcyclist who runs into a poorly marked wire cable placed on an access road allegedly open to the public? (2) Is a property owner potentially liable for injuries suffered by a motorcyclist who runs into a poorly marked wire cable if the owner is aware of "constant trespassers" or "persistent intruders" in the area of the cable? (3) Is a property owner potentially liable to a trespasser for acting in a wanton manner when it places a poorly marked wire cable across an access road, if it is aware of the public's use of the road and the danger posed by the wire cable was easily preventable through visible warnings? (4) Is a real estate company potentially liable for injuries to a motorcyclist who runs into a poorly marked wire cable on property it was not offering for sale, if it placed a "For Sale" sign inviting the public to the general location of the wire cable, knowing of its existence and location? (5) Can the trial court remove the issue of comparative negligence from the jury's consideration if it is not a case of "extremes where * * * the plaintiff's own conduct is highly unreasonable in light of a significantly foreseeable risk and where the defendant's conduct is only marginally unreasonable given a barely foreseeable dangerous condition"? The foregoing summary of a Supreme Court case that is scheduled for oral argument has been prepared for the benefit of the public. Parties and practitioners should rely on neither the factual summary set out above, nor the statement of issues to be decided, as delineating the questions that the Supreme Court ultimately may consider on review. See generally Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20. |
Justice(s) NOT Participating: | ||
Jack L. Landau | ||