{"id":"DUT-OR-019","kind":"duty","level":"court","jurisdiction":"Oregon","state":"OR","metro":"","industry":"","agency":"","eco":"","issuer":"Supreme Court of Oregon","authority":"Oregon common law of negligence; ORS chapter 654 and the workplace safety rule OAR 437-56-095 (reverse signal alarm) then in force; Rich v. Tite-Knot Pine Mill, 245 Or 185 (1966); Davis v. Portland General Electric, 286 Or 195 (1979)","instrument":"Shahtout v. Emco Garbage Co., 298 Or 598, 695 P2d 897 (Feb. 12, 1985) (SC S30764): the standing Oregon rule on governmental safety requirements as the standard of care (negligence per se where the requirement is enacted by the legislature or promulgated under delegated authority for general public safety; a workplace safety rule protecting a class that includes the plaintiff is admissible and \u0027may\u0027 be taken into account by the trier of fact in deciding due care)","title":"Shahtout, Petitioner on Review, v. Emco Garbage Company, Inc. et al, Respondents on Review","dateIssued":"1985-02-12","effective":"standing (Oregon common law, applied throughout 2020 and 2021)","end":"standing","startDate":"1985-02-12","endDate":"2021-09-30","quarters":["2020Q2","2020Q3","2020Q4","2021Q1","2021Q2","2021Q3"],"types":["DUTY","OTHER"],"addressees":["persons generally (every defendant in a negligence action); employers and owners of premises whose conduct is measured against governmental safety requirements"],"clause":"Omission of a required safeguard such as an audible \u0022reverse signal alarm\u0022 on a vehicle would fall below a mandatory standard of care and thus establish \u0022negligence per se\u0022 toward any victim if the requirement were enacted by the legislature or if authority to promulgate it for general public safety were delegated to the Motor Vehicles Division.","enforcement":"Civil liability in negligence (negligence per se where the requirement was enacted by the legislature or promulgated under delegated authority for general public safety; otherwise the requirement is evidence of the standard of due care).","functions":[],"notes":"States the rule that fixes the standard of care of every Oregon business that had no liability shield (DUT-OR-009): a safeguard \u0027required\u0027 by statute or by a rule promulgated under delegated authority \u0027for general public safety\u0027 sets \u0027a mandatory standard of care\u0027 whose omission is negligence per se toward any victim within the protected class, and a workplace safety rule adopted for employees (there, an Oregon OSHA-administered rule) is admissible where \u0027the risk is common to workers and other persons, and the government has determined that the risk calls for a mandatory safeguard,\u0027 so that \u0027the jury (or judge) may take this governmentally prescribed safeguard into account in deciding the issue of due care\u0027; the public health laws (ORS 431A.005(8)), the gubernatorial orders with \u0027the full force and effect of law\u0027 (ORS 401.192(1)) and OAR 437-001-0744 were such requirements. Character as recorded: adjudication (negligence per se; common-law duty).","sourceUrl":"https://static.case.law/or/298/case-pdfs/0598-01.pdf","snapshot":"","fileExists":true,"fileBytes":451512,"grade":"primary","character":"adjudication","description":"","collection":"DUT-OR","url":"/library/DUT-OR-019","exhibitUrl":"/exhibit/DUT-OR-019","citation":"Supreme Court of Oregon, Shahtout v. Emco Garbage Co., 298 Or 598, 695 P2d 897 (Feb. 12, 1985) (SC S30764): the standing Oregon rule on governmental safety requirements as the standard of care (negligence per se where the requirement is enacted by the legislature or promulgated under delegated authority for general public safety; a workplace safety rule protecting a class that includes the plaintiff is admissible and \u0027may\u0027 be taken into account by the trier of fact in deciding due care) (standing) (Ex. DUT-OR-019)","stateName":"Oregon","related":["DUT-OR-009"]}