From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Edmonds v. Pollock Enterprises

Oregon Court of Appeals
Aug 28, 1984
680 P.2d 389 (Or. Ct. App. 1984)

Opinion

A8105-03110; CA A27597

Argued and submitted January 18, 1984 Reversed and remanded April 18, 1984 Reconsideration denied June 29, 1984

Petitions for review denied August 28, 1984

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County.

Lee Johnson, Judge.

Noreen K. Saltveit, Portland, argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellants.

I. Franklin Hunsaker, Portland, argued the cause for respondents Pollock Enterprises, Inc., an Oregon corporation, dba Rose City Speedway; Theodore A. Pollock, individually, and dba Pollock Motors; National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., a Florida corporation; Competitors Liaison Bureau of NASCAR, Inc., a Forida corporation; W. G. S., Inc., an Oregon corporation; Northwest Pushcar, an Oregon nonprofit corporation; James Blomgren, and K K Insurance Agency, Inc., an Indiana corporation. With him on the brief were Stephen F. English, Danford E. Lloyd Bickmore, and Bullivant, Wright, Leedy, Johnson, Pendergrass Hoffman, Portland.

Michael A. Lehner, Portland, argued the cause for respondents William Morrison, individually and dba Bill Morrison, Ambulance Service. With him on the brief was Mitchell, Lang Smith, Portland.

Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Van Hoomissen and Young, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Reversed and remanded.


Plaintiffs, husband and wife, appeal from a summary judgment in favor of defendants in this action for damages arising out of an accident which occurred while husband was competing in a stock car race. The issue is whether the trial court correctly concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that defendants were entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. ORCP 47C. We review the record in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the parties opposing the motion. Soderback v. Townsend, 57 Or. App. 366, 644 P.2d 640, rev den 293 Or. 394 (1982).

Before the race, husband signed three exculpatory releases and wife signed one. We see no point in relating in detail the evidence presented here by affidavit and deposition. Suffice it to say that we conclude genuine issues of material fact are raised as to the validity and scope of the releases, the degree of defendants' negligence, if any, and the nature of the relationships between the parties.

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

Edmonds v. Pollock Enterprises

Oregon Court of Appeals
Aug 28, 1984
680 P.2d 389 (Or. Ct. App. 1984)
Case details for

Edmonds v. Pollock Enterprises

Case Details

Full title:EDMONDS et al, Appellants, v. POLLOCK ENTERPRISES, INC. et al, Respondents

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Aug 28, 1984

Citations

680 P.2d 389 (Or. Ct. App. 1984)
680 P.2d 389

Citing Cases

Emery v. State of Oregon

DENIEDAugust 28, 1984 Edmonds v. Pollock Enterprises, Inc. (A27597)(S30741)( 67 Or. App. 798) (Morrison's…

Grant v. Transit Casualty Co.

The question is whether there is any genuine issue of material fact regarding Transit's affirmative defense.…