The defendant contends Austin v. Portland Traction Co., supra ( 181 Or. 470), also holds the statute applicable to a non-meeting situation. We do not so interpret it. The defendant also relies upon Waller v. Hill, 183 Or. 53, 57-58, 190 P.2d 147 (1948). However, in that case the vehicles were meeting.

We shall now direct our attention to the question of pleading. The affirmative defense of contributory negligence must be pleaded, and in that connection it is necessary to allege specific acts of negligence. Waller v. Hill, 183 Or. 53, 56, 190 P.2d 147; Carstens Co. v. S.P. Co., 134 Or. 53, 61, 292 P. 89; 65 CJS, Negligence, 923, § 198b. To warrant the trial court in instructing upon the provisions of § 115-349, OCLA, the allegations of defendant's affirmative answer must be sufficient for the purpose.

We agree that a guest passenger is not absolved from all personal care for his or her own safety, but has a duty to exercise such care as an ordinarily prudent person would exercise under like circumstances. Petersen v. Abrems and Leatham, 188 Or. 518, 216 P.2d 664 (1950); Waller v. Hill, 183 Or. 53, 190 P.2d 147 (1948); Hamilton v. Haworth, 180 Or. 477, 177 P.2d 409 (1947); Burns v. Coast Auto Lines, 134 Or. 180, 292 P. 1038 (1930); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 495, comments c, d (1965). In Hamilton v. Haworth, supra, the trial court stated: