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.