*1 July reargued 14, 8, Argued 17, October affirmed June 18, November 1959 modified reaffirmed TRACTION COMPANY v. PORTLAND ROSE 2d 125 341 P. P. 2d 375 [1] *2 S *3 Toose, Jr., Lamar Portland, argued the cause for the briefs were On appellant. Phillips, Coughlin, Buell and B. all of Jarvis Portland. Phillips Black, & argued P. Powers the cause for James respondent. were & Joseph Powers, the brief Portland. On Chief Justice, Before McAllister, and Warner, Justices. and Millard, Sloan (Pro Tempore). J.
MILLARD, defendant by Portland appeal Traction This a rendered, from judgment pursuant to a Company in favor of for $20,000 plaintiff, by verdict jury in an County Multnomah of based action, Circuit Court for damages personal for injuries in- negligence, upon curred in a collision an automobile and between owned by plaintiff оperated in defendant Bessie which Bose, riding guest passenger, a a and and bus owned operated by defendant. Defendant Bessie Bose was charged gross negligence, plaintiff since with but, ordinary anything prove failed to as to her in excess of granted negligence, a at trial and, she was nonsuit we hereafter when we refer defendant hence, Company. Traction will have reference to Portland assignments Defendant claims of error all several having give certain to do with failure to instructions from consideration of the which would have removed grant jury charges negligence, certain of failure to motions for for of defendant successive nonsuit, favor judgment notwithstanding and for directed verdict upon lack of substantial evidence some verdict based particulars. requires
Each the errors us to of claimed view the light plaintiff in the most favorable with evidence particular. regard to each The evidence discloses that morning happened on the of accident November 9, near the southeast corner the intersection of 1953, and Hall Avenue Southwest Street Southwest Sixth city on the east side of Southwest Sixth Portland, loading a there was marked zone in front Avenue where located аt the corner the intersection. of a church generally northerly runs in Avenue Sixth Southwest southerly and is 52 feet and wide, direction South- easterly westerly. runs Prior to Street west Hall proceeding bus was north on defendant’s accident, by followed a car Avenue owned and Sixth Southwest plaintiff, operated relative and in Bose, Bessie *4 riding guest passenger plaintiff a was as car which right of the driver. Bessie Bose to the front seat formerly to drive another state but been licensed had Oregon. permit to drive learner’s While had testimony, plaintiff’s there was a conflict in the evi- dence indicated that she did not know Bessie Rose regular operator’s permit did not have a to drive. Immediately prior loading to the collision, zone, approximately long according which was 55 feet plaintiff’s according and evidence, 50 feet to defend- testimony, parking ant’s and where was not allowed, was free of vehicles. While there was conflict of testimony, plaintiff’s evidence indicated that there was adjoining space along an additional free of 15 to feet the curb. approached
As defendant’s bus the intersection it pulled right loading angle into the zone at an so passengers, being as to load and unload there no at- park parallel tempt with the curb. .to Defendant’s impossible parallel park driver testified that was long, running which was 35 feet bus, without into backing up. the intersection and There was evidence regular loading city zones in the of Portland range from 60 80 feet. The bus driver admitted that directly up against could the bus have been driven impact At time of curb. front of the bus [plaintiff feet] was from two to four feet said four projected left from the rear corner curb, into the lane of traffic next to the center line of the street; coming opposite a car from the direction on its line next own side of said but to it.
Plaintiff called defendant Bessie Rose anas adverse part concerning testiifed in who the accident witness, follows: you did “Q When first observe the Portland Company ?bus Traction going along I noticed it was Well, “A ahead of you just going along kind of know. We were us, together, but it was a little ahead of there me. *5 of the acci- scene far back from the “Q How you approximate ?Rose Mrs. that,
dent would say, me to hard for kind of Well, “A that is anyway. figured you 50 foot around but I know, happened you what Then describe “Q would you ? observed bus after first along, going you just know, land of, “A IWell, watching my watching and the bus traffic, land of just you all at coming so because, know, traffic to, you right quick, stopped know I once the bus my by foot on the brake had I had foot on the brake. ready just it there to had I all time. I mean put first bus, then the I noticed and so brake, just just, thing that he like I knew he just your put says, brake stopped. on,’ so ‘Bessie, Noami So my brake,’ on the foot T have said, and I you just harder, a little it down mashed then I stopped hit. So the bus time we and then that know, stop quick just quick have time didn’t that I so right quick just stopped front of me. enough, too any given signal you the bus Did observe “Q driver? any whatever. didn’t observe No, “A I any you ? of the bus movement observe Did “Q “A you going, up know, the bus Yes, right along going aheаd of me. impact was it Hp impact? “Q you just right abruptly, stopped see, Then it “A quick. happened so all It there. any you movement of notice other Did “Q stopping? outside just just of turned a kind noticed I No, “A just pull the curb, in beside it didn’t bit, little land of way, you know. turned pull say inside the curb. Do the curb it didn’t You “Q ? you towards over it went mean (indicating), just but like this turned No, it “A go see—I couldn’t I couldn’t out. stuck end still this around. you “Q But noticed some movement towards right? is that
curb, just way (indi- “A it Well, kind of turned this cating). just I saw I could that, still see the back of the bus in front of me there. It didn’t move up just angled beside the curb. It kind of a little bit the curb. towards just angled “Q It a little bit towards the curb? you just angle “A Just like that, know,
(indicating). *6 yоu any attempt your “Q Did make to steer go automobile to the left to around the bus? trying stop. just “A I was No, I was —be- go cause I couldn’t around. Why you go “Q couldn’t Mrs. around, Rose? coming. “A Because I saw car There was a meeting, you car —I was I mean I couldn’t know, on the other side— go around on the left side. # # # you driving yellow “Q Were close to the line away or some distance from it? figure just average just “A Well, I distance, you
kind of in between, know, on the left-hand side yellow next to the yellow but line, I wasn’t over on figure probably you line. I about, half know, maybe a foot or somewhere foot, like that. you looking any signal by “Q Were for оperator of the bus? yes, they “A I Yes, was, because I knew had stop you stands on the corner, know. you stop lights go “Q Did see the on? any stop lights. “A didn’t didn’t No, I see I any knowledge stopping just of it until it was stopped you in front of me, see, I had to my apply already my brakes there. I had foot on going moderately. and was the brake your “Q Did automobile slow down at all? Well, probably, you “A think I but did, not stop just didn’t to a
know—it slow but it seemed just just a little kind of rolled. We rolled, like it bit on the hill there. your speed yould you at the estimate What “Q impact? time of the figure probably it could have been Well, “A I anywhere been know it couldn’t have I from, oh, something maybe maybe or 20, under, over 20 and like that. you pressure your
“Q brakes, Did exert full Mrs. Eose?
“A Yes. your it that hold, didn’t take And brakes “Q right? they thought should have. Well, not like I “A just kept a-rolling.
They, you the car know, you operating your had been If brakes “Q you they thought able to have been would been, should have your stop car? have.” I should Well, “A I think part, as follows: testified, Plaintiff you you jury noticed when first tell “Q Will was on Sixth Street? bus that lengths to three car two and one-half “A Prom got bus. we before *7 prior any knowledge you of the bus “Q Did time? to that
“A No. you you jury, as remember tell the Now will “Q you happened the after observed bus. what it, going stop, we wasn’t Well, that “A I saw your put brakes.’ She said shе ‘Bessie, said, I on. had them get Eose. last, Mrs. didn’t “Q I put on her and she brakes, her Well,
“A I told them on. had she said happened? then what And
“Q “A Then we hit the bus. you position in notice of the
“Q Did bus street at time of the accident?
“A Yes. position was the of the ?
“Q What bus itWell, “A was out in the left-hand lane.
# # # what “Q And did do? direction the bus What immediately prior did it take to the collision? stop. Well, “A it turned in to say it In “Q You turned in. what direction did it turn? right, go “A It turned to the but it didn’t
very far. you any signal being given by Did see “Q any bus of kind?
“A No. you prior “Q Could see front end position regards accident, its the curb? yes. thought “A Well, I could see—I there were people getting two or three onto the bus. position regard In “Q what to the curb was you the front end the bus ? tell Could from where you were? Well, no. “A you any “Q Did feel motiоn of the car in which
you driving you put were after told Mrs. Rose on the brake?
“A No. stopping felt
“Q “A No. no You car, ? change the car any “Q Did direction manner you put after her to told on the brake? “A No. you actually “Q Now don’t you, do know, impact? car
whether the slowed some before the “A didn’t. No, *8 beg your pardon. I “Q “A coming down we were it did because No, not, place. hill at that of a little
a hill. It is sort recall— You don’t “Q “A slowing up (interrupting) no. bit, one No, you actually not? it did or know whether that it did Do “Q “A up. say not slow would No, I # m # got Bose on time that Bessie From the “Q immediately acci- until before Avenue Sixth per you say speed her was miles what would
dent hour? per hour. miles Around 20 “A 20? Around “Q
“A Yes. any fastеr than that? it have been Could “Q possibly 25. “A Yes, [*] # # lights stop come on on You saw the back
“Q of the bus?
“A Yes. you you glanced up see that when Did there
“Q ? the bus for first time saw “A Yes.” driver testified that he came to a com-
Defendant’s lady stop, opened passenger, and a plete the door, hav- step preparing lower ing on the foot enter the her impact, ground was thrown to moment at the elapsed and that several seconds between result, aas impact. passengers stop There were and the other generally defendant who as witnesses sub- called testimony regard. bus driver’s stantiated gave signal testified that he also hand driver The bus stop although before he turned in, intention his prior he observed no just thereto traffic to the rear. that the bus was so testified constructed further He automatically put opening the door the brakes. *9 An auto that the main of repairman point testified on the automobile came on the extreme impact right of side the front fender. The vehicles were locked right aas result. Plaintiff into unconscious- together lapsed as a result the and severe in- ness of suffered impact and one foot juries, at least to was injury permanent in nature.
The defendant is with two charged alleged specifi- cations of the of the negligence that, first, operator failed to the curb of the street pull right-hand to take on discharge and passengers, that and, second, operator said swerved to the and came to a right sud- den without to other stop giving any warning vehicles and using said street without that said ascertaining movement could made with be safety.
As to the first assignment defendant error, claims that the court erred in failing the give follow ing instruction:
“You disregard will plaintiff’s claim that de- Portland fendant, in that Traction Company, was negligent the operator said motor bus swerved to the any and came right to a sudden without stop giving to other vehicles
warning using said street and without that said ascertaining movement could bе made on safety with ground for the reason that there is no support evidence to this claim and for the reason further that it affirmatively appears from the evidence in case this the motor bus owned Traction operated by defendant, Portland had made an Company, ordinary, regular been and had in a stop several standing stop position for seconds before the impact occurred, and reason for the further that it affirmatively appears from the evidence this case that the stop lights rear of defendant’s bus were in proper work- at time of order the accident.” ing instruction has to do The requested with the alleged in the specification second charged thereof. relating argues portion thereof Defendant that the groundless, swerving action since such tendency from the to remove the bus could riding plaintiff path and, in which vehicle only possible ground negligence has to do hence, only apply stop. reasoning would sudden This with the following by the move- if vehicle was not affected provides: ment. 483.126 OES any highway upon a be- driver of vehicle “The turning starting, stopping or from a direct fore line shall in can made first that such movement be see safety.” provides It further *10 “* * * any operation the other "Whenever may by
vehicle be affected such movement he shall signal give proper driver such movement.” plainly a which is visible to the
of such other vehicle of the intention to make provides required signal further that the This statute by given approved either hand and arm or an be shall turning right device and “before mechanical or continuously given during left shall be the last 50 feet by turning.” the vehicle before The fact that traveled may stop light have turned on does not mean that the given warning feet the was before movement was warning attempted. It conceivable that had the been is plaintiff given, Bessie Eose would claims, which have safely that movement would down so the have slowed says, in effect, But defendant that even as- occurred. improperly stopped, suming the bus was it could that proxi- evidence, of defendant’s have been a in view not, Apparently collision. cause of the mate defendant’s upon proposition that, argument based the since testimony, plaintiff, direct indicated that the in her stopped, the fact that there was some testi- had first inadequacy mony "of the brakes in the Eose as to establish, as Rose car action of the car operated as situation and that defendant’s a cause, superseding a and not рroxi- a condition merely the bus regards no direct testi- there is In the first place, cause. mate testimony The inadequate. were that the brakes mony if the bus effect not to the Rose was of Bessie she would had operating properly brakes been that if her brakes the effect but was to stop, been able have, should they as she though had been operating her have stopped think that she should she would then an which opinion expressed car. other she words, In facts. It could with not be borne out may may or an impend- faced with argued be that, equal propriety time such long have seemed might ing collision, that knowledge between the time of acquisition as the brakes crash that it seemed though the actual fact, they when, the vehicle stop should operate of the brakes assuming not. even But, could that still does not car inadequate, Bessie Rose were the situa- a circumstance, excuse the defendant. In such have been bus might tion as defendant’s regards of Bessie Rose to a condition as regards right a condition regards it was not such recover, but of the to recover. The negligence of plaintiff or may in stopping parking of a motor vehicle operator an even injury though negli- causе of be proximate another vehicle is active of the gence operator *11 Northern the final result. in contributing force Ind NE2d Burk, Inc. v. 162, 228 89 Transit, Indiana 905, from is called other attention 911, In that case 912. that a to the rule an exception this is authorities liable for independent in general is not defendant and person a third by act of negligence numerous class of cases in that found “is to be a produces danger- by negligence his which a person does not become which things, condition ous 14 oper- person active for mischief until another has upon by negligent ated it the commission of another unreasоnably might anticipated which act, not be original occur. The act. of is then re- garded proximate injury, as the cause of the which
finally principle results. The that the act first is, regarded being operation up is to continuous its pur- time second, of the for the therefore, poses fixing liability, the defendant’s the two acts contemporaneous.” are treated as just way saying
This is
another
that an
intervening
supersede prior negligent
act does not
act
reasonably
unless the first was
unforeseeable. Proxi
ordinarily
question
jury.
mate cause is
for the
Kukacka v. Rock et al., 154
61
542,
Or
P2d
544,
297;
Semler,
Wintersteen v.
197
250 P2d
601, 620,
Or
420,
negligent
255 P2d
And
138.
where the
act continues
up
impact
injury,
to the timé of the
this is true
though
party’s negligence may
even
a third
also be
a factor. Birks v. East Side
Co.,
Defendant further that, event, removing question court erred in not proximate jury cause from the because defendant’s evidence so conclusive in its favor that the minds of reasonable carefully men could not differ. We have considered the cited opinion authorities defendant and are of the judge able trial ruling. that the was correct in his In Framptоn v. Consolidated Bus Lines, W Va 815, 62 SE2d where the facts were 126, similar, was held question stop jury. of a that the sudden was for the Ky v. Dixie Traction See, also, Garrison Co., 565, LeMaster v. 997; 232 SW2d Fort Worth Transit Co., *12 find this therefore, 224. We, Tex 160 SW2d 138 512, assignment merit. without of error upon assignment is based of error
The next give in effect, which, to an instruction court’s failure jury’s consideration removed from would have negligence charged specification with defendant which right-hand and failing pull to take on curb to the admittedly, charge, is discharge passengers. This City upon Port- No. based 75607 Ordinance applicable far as here, and so which, as land, amended, provides as follows: loading provided at is no zone bus “Wherever trolley all coaches, all motor buses and the curb, may operated trolley except from as be coaches such trolley positive
. shall wire, streetcar contact with purpose pull ing right of tak- hand curb for the to the discharging passengers; provided, how- on or parking right hand lane or ever, where occupied parked vehicles, motor said lane is pull trolley to the or motor buses shall coaches possible the circumstances then far as under existing.”
Generally,
im
of an ordinance which
the violation
duty
protectiоn
negligence
poses for the
of others is
per
proximate
as a
result of
one entitled
it,
se,
if,
injury,
protection of
ordinance sustains
he
such
contributory negligence, a cause
the absence of
has,
supra;
Co.,
see,
Birks v. East Side
of action.
Transfer
P2d 510.
553,
Bernaski v.
209 Or
307
Liudahl,
also,
designed
pro
only
But
those whom ordinance
may predicate
a claim of
its violation.
tect
Negli
Negligence,
p
§
65
165,
835;
CJS,
Am Jur,
38
Snyder
Logging
4(e), p
gence, §
Prairie
Co.,
v.
347;
Hillman v. Northern
180;
298
572, 580,
207
P2d
Inc.,
Or
County
Defendant, argues question was de that the ordinance in error, plain signed protect passengers and, hence, tiff within intended to' be covered is not the class predicate negligence upon violation. De cannot its *13 says the ordinance since fendant, question effect, right- provides pull to the that the bus shall purpose taking or hand side “for the of dis charging passengers,” pro purpose sole is the passengers. argued tection of It further that this is so because Art XIII of the which Code, Traffic of part, the ordinance is a entitled “Street Cars and Safety designed promote safety pas Zones,” is to of sengers operation public and convenience in the of the transit vehicles. is to It be noted that the ordinance published by is containеd in the Traffic Code city designation “Regulations Applicable under the Trolley to Railroads, Streetcars, or Motor Buses.” designed The title does pro not indicate that it is to only passengers. argument tect Defendant’s is based upon assumption designed that the ordinance was protect only to one class when, in fact, it could have designed protect been to several classes. The nature duty imposed resulting and the benefits deter persons protection. mine Fairport what are entitled to P. & E. R. Co. v. 292 Meredith, US 54 589, SCt 826, Brady L78 Ed 1446; v. Terminal R. Assn. St. Louis, 303 L US 58 SCt 82 Ed 10, 426, Fort 614; Street Union Depot (CCA Mich), v. Hillen Co. 119 307, F2d cer tiorari denied 314 US 62 642, 82, SCt 86 L Ed 515; Topekа Atchison, & Santa Fe R. v.Co. Reesman, 60 Snyder Logging supra, F. 370. v. Prairie Co., offers practical application an illustration of the of this rule. Safety adopted by In that case, Basie Code pro Accident State Industrial Commission contained a flagman vision a should be stationed to direct traf danger felling adjacent fic when there was a tree
17 he the road nor had a road. The was not on plaintiff held that it was to do with traffic and, hence, anything covered this by provision he was not intended to be with could not be considered of the code and, therefore, Olson, cause. In Burke v. 206 Or proximate relation to children to a statute authorized school 759, 291 P 149, a school bus a at while highway any point across pass a street when such A child crossed stopped. public of either but not for the bus was stopped, purpose that the child or the bus. It was held boarding leaving of the reading was not this statute since protected it was for the chil- statute indicated protection the conveyance. See, also, dren or going leaving v. 111 Finch, Hamilton 166 109 P2d P2d 852, Or 156, v. A 81; Flynn Gordon, NH 715. In the 198, instant No. case, 75607, preamble Ordinance which is a the section involved reads: part, traffic
“An on streets and *14 regulating Ordinance for motor vehicle highways; providing inspection; instаllation and use of parking meters; authorizing for certain standards; fees; fixing viding providing pro- an declaring emergency.” penalties sections of the same ordinance clearly Other reveal that the of the ordinance was to vehicular purpose regulate traffic as well as other traffic. That the requirement of in of the section the ordinance to the effect question for of that the or un- stopping purpose loading to the should curb loading passengers pull would, traffic benefit vehicular there can be no doubt. fact, inclined to the narrow are not construction adopt We but hold that by defendant, ordinance suggested only designed protect was not bus passen- provision traffic the streets. using but also vehicular gers defendant that any event, argues vio But, an ordinance must be the cause of proximate lation of for recovery. to constitute Am injury ground 88 18 Negligence, p §
Jur,
Austin v. Portland Traction
166, 837;
With,
Co .,
P2d
Or
412.
this contention
470, 182
agree.
argues
we
that
Defendant,
there is
however,
go
jury
question
insufficient evidence to
to the
on the
proximate
charge
negli
cause with relation to the
gence having
pull
to do with failure to
to the curb. If
attempted
placed
the construction
to be
on this section
question by
of the ordinance
adopted,
defendant be
argument
theory
then there is force to its
on the
plaintiff’s driver was faced with a condition not caused
by
of defendant. Since we have not fol
opinion
lowed such
we are of
construction,
go
jury.
there was sufficient evidence to
We
relating
proximate
base this on the same reasons
expressed
cause as have been heretofore
with relation
specification
negligence.
to the first
In addition to
previously
Jag
the authorities
referred to, see, also,
gers
Greyhound
v. South East
Lines,
126F2d
Inc.,
762;
Baking
App,
Rubin v. Rainbo
Co., Ohio
NE2d 483;
Corp.,
Bаcon v. Rochester Transit
The third of error has to do with failure *15 court’s to allow defendant’s motion for nonsuit, judgment motion for directed verdict and motion for notwithstanding upon the verdict, all based the same points and authorities as set forth with relation to the assignments first two and which error, we have al- These ready excep- with some discussed, exceptions. tions relate to the of Bessie the driver Bose, that negli- of the and the automobile, imputation and also to the matter of alleged gence plaintiff, There on behalf of contributory negligence plaintiff. if behalf be- which, evidence ample plaintiff’s contributory would not lieved, negative negligence, on account of any negligence but also the imputation all of which was submitted to the plaintiff’s driver, this without assignment find jury. We, thereforе, merit. reached,
In view of the conclusions judgment affirmed. hereby the trial court is
ON REHEARING *16 Rehearing
On Loose, Lamar Jr. and Lamar Loose, Sr. argued for appellant. cause On the briefs were Tooze, & Tooze Kerr, Morrell, Portland, Phillips, Buell & and Jarvis all Coughlin, Phillips B. Black, of Portland.
James P. Powers the cause for argued respondent. Powers, On the brief were Joseph & Portland. J. O’CONNELL,
The defendant has for a petitioned rehearing, that our former was in decision error alleging several particulars.
It that we erred in argued deciding requiring Ordinance No. park 75607, buses to practicable applicable close the curb as was for protection plaintiff. opinion In our former question we said designed that the ordinance in protect passengers not but also vehicular using clearly implying traffic the street, violation the statute would constitute per pass necessary se. It was not for tous on the *17 applicability of the ordinance because the defendant exception failed to take an to the instructions re- lating to the ordinance and made reference to it by implication requested in a instruction which was requested rejection refused. The the instruction, assigned which error, as read as follows: disregard plaintiff’s “You will claim that the Company, negli- defendаnt, Portland Traction was gent operator in that the motor said bus failed pull right to the to hand curb of said Southwest discharge passengers Avenue to take on and Sixth on the ground for the reason that there is no support to this claim for evidence the further affirmatively appears reason that from the case that the motor bus evidence this was right pulled possible far to the as under the existing.” circumstances then give to this instruction does not
The refusal permit defendant to attack the trial court’s instruction effect ordinance to the that the violation of the would per negligence instruction re constitute se. The quested simply jury was no there evi tells support to servant dence the claim defendant’s negligent failing pull up hand was passengers. discharge The in to take on and curb and is makes no mention of ordinance struction appropriate, applicable, common if breach duty. requested instruction did no In short, law negli- that there was no evidence than state more gence in the movement of the bns toward the curb. point As shall we out there later, was such evidence. The defendant claims that error was committed holding jury stopping that the could find that the city of the bus in violation of ordinance was the proximate injury. plaintiff’s cause of the We held jury negligence that the find that the could combined the accident. The defendant of both drivers caused contends that there is no evidence connect the plaintiff’s injury. the ordinance with the violation of may yet We this and defendant is not aided concede presented with the same in this case. would be We problem stopping the sudden of the bus or whether turning or was not a toward the was viola its curb question The is whether there tion of the ordinance. jury could conclude that from which the is evidence negligent and whether that servant was defendant’s producing factor in a substantial injury. plaintiff’s “the testified that host,
Bessie Bose, stop just quick time to stopped I didn’t so *18 quick right stopped enough, just front too in quick any knowledge [the of it didn’t have and “I me,” of just stopped front stopping in bus] it was until my apply you brakes there. had to and I me, see, going my already brake and was foot on the had I essentially thing moderately.” the same said She plaintiff by testimony given her. Both other they not the bus did see that stated Bose Bessie stop signal was not give or turn. This a driver by testimony the follow- merely negative evidenced testimony Bose: ing Bessie by any signal looking you for Were
“Q. operator bus? they yes, knew hаd I because was, I Tes, “A. you know.” stop corner, on the stands
23 There was also evidence that the bus did driver not exercise sufficient care to determine he whether could stop safety. with He testified as follows: prior starting stop,
“Q. Just to make the did you any observe traffic to the rear? “A. No. you
“Q. Do have facilities on the for that purpose ? “A. Yes.
“Q. rear It’s a mirror, view is it?
“A. it is. Yes, you you
“Q. Do remember whether looked you any mirror to see you? had if traffic follow- “A. don’t remember I that. doing
“Q. You don’t remember that?
“A. No.” argues foregoing
The defendant that the evidence, together presented with other evidence behalf plaintiff, light must be considered in of the physical clearly facts defendant which, maintains, shows that the conduct could of defendant’s servant legal injury. not have constituted a cause of This is following arrived at car calculation. The fifty proceeding approximately feet behind the bus speed per exceeding aat miles hour. Plaintiff not 25 your put re- brake on” to which Bessie said, “Bessie my plied, brake.” The driver “I foot on the impact “mashed it down little harder” then for the relies on ORS 483.444 occurred. Defendant travelling per computation hour a car 25 miles stop proper able to dis- should be with brakes per hour a car moves At miles tance of feet. 25 According аpproximately second. feet in one impact speed the moment of her at Rose, Bessie *19 per Thus, miles hour. have been over 20 could not argued, clearly is the evidence that Bessie shows stopped during car could have her within the time plaintiff the between her and took which place, discussion It asserted, if her were not defective. brakes proper lack of brakes was the that the sole therefore, proximate injury. These calculations cause the upon assumption at time are that the based following fifty ear feet from the bus Bessie Bose to that bus driver know, or had reаson knew, jury stop. that had no If believed she to intended stop at warning to bus driver intended that the they concluded that it was reason- have could corner, apply than she her brakes earlier her not able for opinion, “It is con- former we our did. As said warning given, which been had the that ceivable plaintiff would have slowed down Bessie Bose claims, safely occurred.” would the movement so which an in- evidence from think We be drawn is can of defendant’s ference say prepared that a reason- not we are weak but jury draw the inference. could not able respect Subject to the with modification applicability adhere our ordinance, we opinion. former