Towe v. Sacagawea, Inc., 346 P.3d 1207

Background

Plaintiff rode his motorcycle up a privately owned access road and collided with a cable Mountain View had stretched across the road at the boundary of its quarry, suffering serious injury.
The access road is owned in segments by the BLM, the (former) Kinyon owner, and Mountain View; Mountain View posted a “Private Road / No Trespassing” sign at the entrance and hung the cable near its property line.
Re/Max had placed a directional sign at the road entrance (left in place) and earlier had had a separate “for sale” sign on the Kinyon parcel (removed before the accident). Plaintiff knew the Kinyon parcel and had been told by his girlfriend of other nearby parcels for sale.
Plaintiff glanced briefly backward while following another rider who slowed; the lead rider stopped in time but plaintiff did not and struck the low, weathered cable. Plaintiff admitted he had known of the cable but said he had forgotten about it.
Trial court granted summary judgment for both defendants on the ground plaintiff was 100% responsible. Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part; Oregon Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Re/Max, reversed for Mountain View, and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was plaintiff solely responsible (bar to recovery)?	Plaintiff argued comparative-fault is for jury; his momentary glance and scanning do not make him sole cause.	Defendants argued plaintiff’s failure to keep a lookout made him 100% at fault as a matter of law.	Court: No — disputed facts about attention and markings make sole-cause a jury question.
Did Re/Max cause plaintiff’s injury (causation)?	Re/Max’s directional sign plus removal of parcel sign distracted plaintiff into searching for property and caused the accident.	Re/Max argued its sign did not cause plaintiff to go up the road or be distracted; plaintiff was seeking other parcels based on girlfriend’s statements.	Court: Yes for Re/Max on summary judgment — no reasonable juror could find Re/Max’s conduct was cause-in-fact.
Was plaintiff a trespasser such that Mountain View owed only willful/wanton duty?	Plaintiff argued factual dispute whether lower road segments were open to public use, so higher duty may apply.	Mountain View argued its “Private Road/No Trespassing” sign and ownership made plaintiff a trespasser as a matter of law.	Court: No as matter of law — factual dispute exists whether BLM/Kinyon segments were open to public use; jury must decide status and resulting duty.
Did Mountain View breach duty by placing the cable (premises liability)?	Plaintiff contended the cable was an unreasonably dangerous artificial condition insufficiently marked, posing risk to lawful travelers on adjacent road.	Mountain View argued cable was reasonable security measure and not unreasonably dangerous; even if negligent, plaintiff’s fault predominates.	Court: Breach and comparative-fault are factual questions for jury — summary judgment for Mountain View was improper.

Key Cases Cited

Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, 303 Or. 1 (Ore. 1987) (foreseeability approach often subsumes traditional duty-breach analysis in negligence).
Oregon Steel Mills, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, LLP, 336 Or. 329 (Ore. 2003) (cause-in-fact remains separate element from foreseeability).
Garrison v. Deschutes County, 334 Or. 264 (Ore. 2002) (plaintiff can be sole cause as matter of law where warning would not have changed outcome).
Pitcher v. Leathers, 270 Or. 666 (Ore. 1974) (lookout standard: reasonableness of driver’s attention is ordinarily for jury absent clear fact pattern).
Wolfe v. Union Pacific R. Co., 230 Or. 119 (Ore. 1962) (land possessor may owe increased duty where owner’s conduct makes land appear part of public way).
Brennen v. City of Eugene, 285 Or. 401 (Ore. 1978) (basic negligence elements framed as duty, breach, cause-in-fact).