Black v. Stith

8 Citing cases

  1. Blaylock v. Westlund

    254 P.2d 203 (Or. 1953)   Cited 4 times

    In ordering a new trial, the trial judge declared: "Now, in the case of Black vs. Stith, 164 Or. 117, the defendant had the right-of-way. Now, there is no statutory right-of-way but under this case of Black vs. Stith, 164 Or. 117, the man, undoubtedly, had what is called the common law right-of-way. It says `While the statute does not confer upon the plaintiff driver any right of way between intersections, we think it is well established under the common law that he has such right.' So that the defendant travelling on his own side of the road had the right-of-way and the other man was not entitled, the plaintiff was not entitled to turn to the left and across the path of the defendant without seeing that that could be done in safety.

  2. Fisher v. Reilly

    207 Or. 7 (Or. 1956)   Cited 6 times

    Error is assigned by reason of the refusal of the court to grant a directed verdict for defendant. The defendant cites Black v. Stith, 164 Or. 117, 100 P.2d 485, as supporting his claim that the driver who made the left-hand turn was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. In that case, as in the one at bar, the south-bound driver turned left in front of oncoming traffic at a point where there was no intersection.

  3. Van Zandt v. Goodman

    179 P.2d 724 (Or. 1947)   Cited 23 times
    In Van Zandt the accident occurred in a manner similar to the accident herein, only it was the defendant who operated the vehicle that had the right of way. Defendant therein offered the same contention offered by the plaintiff in the instant case.

    The court has many times declared that the right of way conferred by statute is not inflexible, nor absolute, nor a right which may be exercised without due regard to the attendant circumstances and the safety and rights of others. Black v. Stith, 164 Or. 117, 121, 100 P.2d 485; Keys v. Griffith, 153 Or. 190, 198, 55 P.2d 15; Stryker v. Hastie, 131 Or. 282, 287, 282 P. 1087; West v. Jaloff, 113 Or. 184, 200, 232 P. 642, 36 A.L.R. 1391. The requirements of § 115-320, O.C.L.A., as amended, known as the "basic rule", were intended, as Mr. Justice RAND said in Stryker v. Hastie, supra, "to curb recklessness and to prevent careless driving upon the part of every person driving a motor vehicle upon any public highway. They are applicable to drivers having the right of way as well as to those not having it.

  4. Thornton v. Pender

    268 Ind. 540 (Ind. 1978)   Cited 74 times
    Defining the duty to keep proper lookout as the duty "to see that which is clearly visible or which in the exercise of due care would be visible"

    The use of safety regulations as evidence of the standard of care owed by highway users is not necessarily dependent upon a technical violation of those regulations. Safety statutes have been applied in civil litigation when no criminal conviction would have been possible, as in Geisking v. Sheimo, (1960) 252 Iowa 37, 105 N.W.2d 599, (safety regulation was not validly enacted); Black v. Stith, (1940) 164 Or. 117, 100 P.2d 485, (no technical violation of statute requiring observance of traffic signs since "yield" sign was not an authorized traffic sign); and Pelzer v. Lange, (1958) 254 Minn. 46, 93 N.W.2d 666, (seven year old was not subject to prosecution for violation of safety statute). (Reference from Prosser, HANDBOOK OF THE LAW OF TORTS, 4th Ed. § 36).

  5. Ray v. Anderson

    403 P.2d 372 (Or. 1965)   Cited 9 times

    This court is committed to the doctrine that a common law right of way exists in favor of an oncoming vehicle which is being met by one making a left turn between intersections across its lane of travel. Black v. Stith, 164 Or. 117, 100 P.2d 485 (1940); Blaylockv. Westlund, 197 Or. 536, 254 P.2d 203 (1953); Fisher v. Reilly, 207 Or. 7, 294 P.2d 615 (1956). We have been unable to find any other situation in which this court has ever held that a common law right of way existed.

  6. Brindle v. McCormick Lbr. Mfg. Corp.

    293 P.2d 221 (Or. 1956)   Cited 8 times
    In Brindle v. McCormick Lbr. Mfg. Corp., 206 Or. 333, 293, P.2d 221 (1956), it was claimed that a deprivation of right of way occurred when a vehicle, which had overtaken and passed another, cut too sharply back into the right-hand lane of traffic forcing the overtaken vehicle off the road.

    This court has held that there is a common-law right of way applicable to the operation of motor vehicles upon the highways of the state. Blaylock v.Westlund, 197 Or. 536, 254 P.2d 203; Black v. Stith, 164 Or. 117, 121, 100 P.2d 485. The cases cited have to do with the duty of a motorist making a left-hand turn between intersections in the face of approaching traffic. In Valdin v. Holteen and Nordstrom, 199 Or. 134, 157, 260 P.2d 504, it was contended that an allegation in a complaint that the defendant failed to yield the right of way justified an instruction submitting the issue of whether the defendant violated the provision in ORS 483.310 (2) that the driver of an overtaken vehicle "shall not increase the speed of his vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle.

  7. Phoenix Baking Co. v. Vaught

    62 Ariz. 222 (Ariz. 1945)   Cited 10 times
    In Phoenix Baking Co. v. Vaught, 62 Ariz. 222, 156 P.2d 725, plaintiff collided with the rear of defendant's car when defendant stopped preparatory to a left turn to a private entrance.

    Under statutes similar to ours, courts generally hold that where, as here, a driver makes a left-hand turn to cross a busy highway between intersections, he is held to the exercise of "high degree of care," extraordinary care and caution," "far more vigilance," than the rule of "due care" would demand under other circumstances. Glick v. Ropes, 18 Wn.2d 260, 138 P.2d 858; Onkels v. Stogsdill, 151 Wn. 194, 275 P. 692; Caesar v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 187 Okla. 559, 104 P.2d 429; Esponette v. Wiseman, 130 Me. 297, 155 A. 650; L'Esperance v. Sherburne, 85 N.H. 103, 155 A. 203; Young v. Cerrato, 2 Cal.App.2d 421, 37 P.2d 1063; Black v. Stith, 164 Or. 117, 100 P.2d 485. [5, 6] We agree with the cases cited by defendants from California, Oregon, and some other jurisdictions, that the statute under consideration does not require a driver, before he makes a left-hand turn, to become "an insurer of others," nor does it require "absolute safety." The "extra precaution" rule of the McIver case does not impose such burdens.

  8. Swigert v. Hawkins

    188 N.E.2d 343 (Ill. App. Ct. 1963)

    In so doing it is not our intention to establish additional degrees of care as rules of law for the guidance of juries. When in Black v. Stith, supra ( 164 Or. 117, 100 P.2d 487), we said that such a driver is obliged to exercise `a high degree of care' we also said that the test is `what would an ordinarily prudent person have done under the same circumstances?'" it is apparent that the court was judging the conduct of the motorist by a higher degree of care than required under the decisions of our courts of review.