Stribling v. Rogue Air Applicators, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Stribling v. Rogue Air Applicators, Inc.

788 P.2d 495, 100 Or. App. 747

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 14, 1990

Docket87-2658-J-1; CA A50322

StatusPublished

This text of 788 P.2d 495 (Stribling v. Rogue Air Applicators, Inc.) 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

Stribling v. Rogue Air Applicators, Inc., 788 P.2d 495, 100 Or. App. 747 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In the process of crop dusting a neighboring farm in 1987, defendants flew near plaintiffs property, allegedly causing plaintiffs foxes to eat their young. Plaintiff filed this action, alleging that defendants were negligent. Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment granted to defendants Rogue Air Applicators, Inc., and Conner.¹ ORCP 47C. Plaintiff argues that a material issue of fact exists as to whether defendants had notice of the harm that could result from flying their airplane too near plaintiffs farm.

In opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, plaintiff averred that phone calls were made to defendants from 1982 to 1985, warning them of the danger to plaintiffs foxes. Plaintiff testified in a deposition that, when Conner was notified of the loss, he told plaintiff that he knew that plaintiff was raising foxes and had experienced a similar problem involving mink in Idaho.

There was evidence that the harm was foreseeable and there is a genuine issue of material fact whether defendants were negligent. See Docken v. Ciba-Geigy, 86 Or App 277, 281, 739 P2d 591, rev den 304 Or 405 (1987). The trial court erred in granting the summary judgment.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM

In the process of crop dusting a neighboring farm in 1987, defendants flew near plaintiffs property, allegedly causing plaintiffs foxes to eat their young. Plaintiff filed this action, alleging that defendants were negligent. Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment granted to defendants Rogue Air Applicators, Inc., and Conner.¹ ORCP 47C. Plaintiff argues that a material issue of fact exists as to whether defendants had notice of the harm that could result from flying their airplane too near plaintiffs farm.

In opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, plaintiff averred that phone calls were made to defendants from 1982 to 1985, warning them of the danger to plaintiffs foxes. Plaintiff testified in a deposition that, when Conner was notified of the loss, he told plaintiff that he knew that plaintiff was raising foxes and had experienced a similar problem involving mink in Idaho.

There was evidence that the harm was foreseeable and there is a genuine issue of material fact whether defendants were negligent. See Docken v. Ciba-Geigy, 86 Or App 277, 281, 739 P2d 591, rev den 304 Or 405 (1987). The trial court erred in granting the summary judgment.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

788 P.2d 495, 100 Or. App. 747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stribling-v-rogue-air-applicators-inc-orctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack