Bottom v. McClain

9 Citing cases

  1. Wootten v. Dillard

    592 P.2d 1021 (Or. 1979)   Cited 11 times
    Explaining standard

    Disregarding the error in identification of the statute number, we read the opinion to assume, again without discussion, that the statutory change worked no variation in meaning. Bottom v. McClain, 260 Or. 186, 489 P.2d 940 (1971), without discussion, expressly states that the change in statute did not change the rule of Williamson. "The many cases discussing the problem [sufficiency of the evidence to establish gross negligence] are too extensive to cite in full, but Williamson, supra, is generally considered the anchor case with a comprehensive analysis of gross negligence in Oregon.

  2. Bogue v. McKibben

    564 P.2d 1031 (Or. 1977)   Cited 4 times
    In Bogue v. McKibben, 278 Or. 483, 564 P.2d 1031 (1977), the defendant claimed that the trial court erred in submitting to the jury the question of whether the area where an accident occurred was a "residence district" within the meaning of former ORS 483.104(2)(a).

    "* * * in order to show gross negligence it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that defendant's conduct, when measured objectively, reveals `a state of mind indicative of an indifference to the probable consequences of one's acts.' This state of mind has been described as an `I don't care what happens' attitude. Bottom v. McClain [ 260 Or. 186, 489 P.2d 940 (1971)] at 191-92. * * *"

  3. Pearson v. Ethicon, Inc.

    3:20-cv-01905-AC (D. Or. Sep. 30, 2021)

    Gross negligence requires "conscious indifference to or reckless disregard of the rights of others." Bottom v. McClain, 489 P.2d 940, 942 (Or. 1971) (quoting Or. Rev. Stat. 30.115(2)). Judge Acosta correctly observes that Dr. Ostergard's testimony creates a material fact dispute as to the adequacy of Defendants' warnings for TVT. F&R at 27 (citing Mot. to Exclude, Ex. C [ECF 32] at ¶8).

  4. Hill v. Garner

    561 P.2d 1016 (Or. 1977)   Cited 17 times

    "`Gross negligence' refers to negligence which is materially greater than the mere absence of reasonable care under the circumstances, and which is characterized by conscious indifference to or reckless disregard of the rights of others." 4. The elements of gross negligence under the statute have been discussed at length in two prior opinions, Bottom v. McClain, 260 Or. 186, 489 P.2d 940 (1971), and Williamson v. McKenna, 223 Or. 336, 354 P.2d 56 (1960). Nothing is to be gained by repeating those discussions here.

  5. Sherman v. McAllister

    265 Or. 630 (Or. 1973)   Cited 4 times

    In the instant case, the jury could have found the defendant was driving too fast, knew that the road was wet and slippery, and that the rapid shifts at a high rate of speed under the existing circumstances would cause the car to lose its traction and the right rear wheel to go off the highway; that defendant could have made the shift from third gear to fourth gear at a lesser speed without spinning the rear wheels or "fishtailing" after she had been warned to "slow down." Defendant contends that this case can be distinguished on the facts from Bottom v. McClain, 260 Or. 186, 489 P.2d 940 (1971). It is probably fair to say that each guest passenger case can be distinguished in some manner on the facts from every other guest passenger case.

  6. Olson v. Pac. N.W. Bell

    65 Or. App. 422 (Or. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that where telephone utility company "failed to perform its statutory duty, plaintiff may recover under negligence, gross negligence or breach of contract theories."

    This state of mind has been described as an "I don't care what happens" attitude. Bottom v. McClain, [ 260 Or. 186, 191-92, 489 P.2d 940 (1971)].' Hill v. Garner, 277 Or. 641, 646, 561 P.2d 1016 (1977). Ordinarily, the issue of gross negligence is a question of fact to be decided by the jury.

  7. Fisher v. Huck

    624 P.2d 177 (Or. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 9 times

    "* * * in order to show gross negligence it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that defendant's conduct, when measured objectively, reveals 'a state of mind indicative of an indifference to the probable consequences of one's acts.' This state of mind has been described as an 'I don't care what happens' attitude. Bottom v. McClain [ 260 Or. 186, 489 P.2d 940 (1971)] at 191-92.* * *" 277 Or at 646.

  8. Garrison v. Pacific Northwest Bell

    45 Or. App. 523 (Or. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 23 times
    Upholding state regulation limiting telephone company's liability where it has acted negligently

    In the context of a guest passenger case it has been stated that "[I]n order to show gross negligence it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that defendant's conduct, when measured objectively, reveals 'a state of mind indicative of an indifference to the probable consequences of one's acts.' This state of mind has been described as an 'I don't care what happens' attitude. Bottom v. McClain, [ 260 Or. 186, 191-92, 489 P.2d 940 (1971]." Hill v. Garner, 277 Or. 641, 646, 561 P.2d 1016 (1977).

  9. Smith v. Barry

    587 P.2d 483 (Or. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 3 times

    We have reviewed the cases in which a combination of negligent acts was alleged to have established gross negligence and find that the essence of those decisions is that in order to support such a claim, the negligent acts taken together must show a reckless state of mind on the part of defendant. In Bottom v. McClain, 260 Or. 186, 489 P.2d 940 (1971), the defendant was driving a Corvette on a highway at night. Plaintiff, a passenger, complained several times of defendant's driving.