Neal v. Johnson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Neal v. Johnson

962 P.2d 706, 154 Or. App. 500, 1998 Ore. App. LEXIS 944

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 17, 1998

Docket9601-00563; CA A94210

StatusPublished

This text of 962 P.2d 706 (Neal v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Neal v. Johnson, 962 P.2d 706, 154 Or. App. 500, 1998 Ore. App. LEXIS 944 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

*501 PER CURIAM

Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of intervenor-defendant Enterprise Rent-A-Car (Enterprise). Enterprise rented a car to Mr. White, and at the same time sold White a damage waiver and insurance covering certain personal injuries. White declined Enterprise’s offer of liability insurance. Plaintiff was injured while defendant Johnson was driving the car that Enterprise had rented to White. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in entering judgment in favor of Enterprise because Enterprise was obliged to provide liability insurance on the rented car pursuant to the financial responsibility law, ORS 806.080. Plaintiff asserts that our decision in Farmers Ins. Co. v. Snappy Car Rental, 128 Or App 516, 876 P2d 833, rev den 319 Or 625 (1994), supports her position.

We reject plaintiffs argument. Her position is based on her unsupported assertion that Johnson was a permissive user of the car White had rented from Enterprise. See ORS 806.080(l)(b) (policy must cover “all persons who, with the consent of the named insured, use the motor vehicle”). However, on summary judgment, Enterprise presented evidence that Johnson did not have White’s permission to use the car, and plaintiff offered no contradictory evidence on that point. The trial court properly granted Enterprise’s motion for summary judgment.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*501 PER CURIAM

Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of intervenor-defendant Enterprise Rent-A-Car (Enterprise). Enterprise rented a car to Mr. White, and at the same time sold White a damage waiver and insurance covering certain personal injuries. White declined Enterprise’s offer of liability insurance. Plaintiff was injured while defendant Johnson was driving the car that Enterprise had rented to White. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in entering judgment in favor of Enterprise because Enterprise was obliged to provide liability insurance on the rented car pursuant to the financial responsibility law, ORS 806.080. Plaintiff asserts that our decision in Farmers Ins. Co. v. Snappy Car Rental, 128 Or App 516, 876 P2d 833, rev den 319 Or 625 (1994), supports her position.

We reject plaintiffs argument. Her position is based on her unsupported assertion that Johnson was a permissive user of the car White had rented from Enterprise. See ORS 806.080(l)(b) (policy must cover “all persons who, with the consent of the named insured, use the motor vehicle”). However, on summary judgment, Enterprise presented evidence that Johnson did not have White’s permission to use the car, and plaintiff offered no contradictory evidence on that point. The trial court properly granted Enterprise’s motion for summary judgment.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

962 P.2d 706, 154 Or. App. 500, 1998 Ore. App. LEXIS 944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neal-v-johnson-orctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack