Guritz v. Foster

4 Citing cases

  1. Fullerton v. White

    273 Or. 649 (Or. 1975)   Cited 2 times

    ruck Express, 164 Or. 318, 100 P.2d 474 (1940); Luebke v. Hawthorne et al, 183 Or. 362, 192 P.2d 990 (1948); Rosa v. Briggs and Lafferty, supra n. 15; Johnson v. Kolovos, 224 Or. 266, 355 P.2d 1115 (1960); Kaufman v. Fisher, 230 Or. 626, 371 P.2d 948 (1962); Spring v. Liles, supra n. 11; Sinclair v. Barker, 236 Or. 599, 605, 390 P.2d 321 (1964); Zwick v. Burdin, 239 Or. 629, 631, 399 P.2d 362 (1965); Reed v. Wilson, 244 Or. 388, 418 P.2d 501 (1966); Havlina v. Guaranty Chevrolet, 265 Or. 562, 509 P.2d 415 (1973); Ghafoor v. Taj, 267 Or. 205, 516 P.2d 75 (1973); Baker v. Stutzman, 273 Or. 530, 542 P.2d 478 (1975). Cases in which this question has been decided by the court as a matter of law include: Melcher v. Adams, 174 Or. 75, 146 P.2d 354 (1944); Senechal v. Bauman, 232 Or. 217, 375 P.2d 60 (1962); Tarbet v. Green, 236 Or. 361, 388 P.2d 468 (1964); Gilmore v. Schiewe, 237 Or. 98, 390 P.2d 624 (1964); Ashland v. Pacific P. L. Co., 239 Or. 241, 249, 395 P.2d 420, 397 P.2d 538 (1964); Guritz v. Foster, 247 Or. 550, 431 P.2d 6 (1967); U.S. National Bank v. Njust, 257 Or. 563, 480 P.2d 420 (1971); Quirk v. Ross, 257 Or. 80, 476 P.2d 559 (1970); Hankins v. Bates, supra n. 9. In the following cases plaintiff was held to be a passenger, rather than a guest, as a matter of law. McBee v. Knight, 233 Or. 160, 377 P.2d 163 (1962), and Prosch v. Cater, 252 Or. 63, 448 P.2d 380 (1968).

  2. Loudon v. Hill

    286 N.W.2d 189 (Iowa 1979)   Cited 11 times

    Under defendant's theory the purpose of the trip would be unaffected by Abel's choice of cars, and therefore he would be a guest in either car despite the fact his presence on the trip may have conferred a benefit on both drivers. This case is distinguishable from Guritz v. Foster, 247 Or. 550, 431 P.2d 6 (1967), relied upon by defendant, in which a plaintiff was held as a matter of law to be a guest despite an argument that she and her husband had conferred a benefit on the defendant by furnishing a second vehicle for the sightseeing trip involved. The distinguishing feature is that the purpose of the trip in Guritz was social.

  3. Michael v. Hill

    497 P.2d 662 (Or. 1972)   Cited 1 times

    The evidence clearly establishes that plaintiff was a social guest of defendant at the time of the accident. See U.S. National Bank v. Njust, 257 Or. 563, 480 P.2d 420 (1971); Guritz v. Foster, 247 Or. 550, 431 P.2d 6 (1967). The plaintiff also assigns as error the testimony of a defendant's witness regarding repairs made on the emergency brake on the Jeep prior to the time of the accident.

  4. U.S. National Bank v. Njust

    480 P.2d 420 (Or. 1971)   Cited 4 times

    " Thus, in Spring v. Liles, in which two employees rode to work together in a car belonging to one of them, this court held that the plaintiff was not a "guest," despite the fact that there was no "benefit" or "payment" to the host driver, because the trip was "for a common purpose other than pleasure," in that the trip was to further mutual business interests of both. Conversely, in Guritz v. Foster, 247 Or. 550, 431 P.2d 6 (1967), in which the plaintiff's decedent was on a trip with her host for the purpose of showing her a remote area in Douglas county, the trip was held to be "an extension of hospitality for the sole purpose of the furtherance of a mutually desirable social relationship," with the result that plaintiff's decedent was a guest, as a matter of law. There may, of course, also be cases such as Getchell v. Reilly, supra, at 268, in which there is sufficient evidence to make it a question of fact for the jury whether plaintiff's presence in defendant's car (in that case to show defendant where to find a fishing net) was "motivated by a desire to confer a benefit upon the defendant (other than social) or by a purpose to participate in mutually desirable social activities."