GREIST v. PHILLIPS

CC 90-1879-L-1; CA A76287; SC S41542.

906 P.2d 789 (1995)

322 Or. 281

Mary A. GREIST, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Peter Maurice Greist, Deceased, Respondent on Review, v. Nicky Don PHILLIPS and Lightning Transportation, Inc., a Tennessee corporation, Petitioners on Review. Nicky Don PHILLIPS and Lightning Transportation, Inc., a Tennessee corporation, Petitioners on Review, v. Elizabeth B. TRIPP and Mary A. Greist, individually, Respondents on Review.

Supreme Court of Oregon, In Banc.

Decided November 24, 1995.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Ridgway K. Foley, Jr., of Foley & Duncan, P.C., Portland, and Hugh B. Collins, Medford, argued the cause, for petitioners on review. With them on the briefs was M. Elizabeth Duncan.

Kathryn H. Clarke, Portland, argued the cause, for respondent on review Mary A. Greist. With her on the briefs were Maureen Leonard, Portland, and Robert A. Berst, Seattle, Washington.

Daniel L. Harris, of Davis, Gilstrap, Harris, Hearn & Welty, Ashland, appeared on behalf of respondent on review Elizabeth B. Tripp and joined in the brief on the merits of respondent on review Greist.

John T. Kaempf, Douglas G. Houser, and R. Lindahl, of Bullivant, Houser, Bailey, Pendergrass & Hoffman, P.C., Portland, filed a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Defense Research Institute.

Keith J. Bauer and Billy M. Sime, of Parks, Bauer, Sime & Winkler, Salem, filed a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Oregon Association of Hospitals and Health Systems.

Brent M. Crew and Thomas E. Cooney, of Cooney & Crew, P.C., Portland, filed a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Oregon Medical Association.

William L. Hallmark, of Hallmark, Keating & Abbott, P.C., Portland, filed a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Senco Products, Inc.

Robert Udziela and Kimberley Chaput, of Pozzi Wilson Atchison, Portland, filed a brief on behalf of amici curiae Oregon Trial Lawyers Association, Oregon Consumer League, and ARC of Multnomah County.


GRABER, Justice.

The questions presented on review in this wrongful death case are: (1) whether the trial court erred when it allowed the jury to consider defendant Phillips' violation of certain federal regulations as evidence of negligence; (2) whether the trial court properly interpreted ORS 18.560,1 which limits to $500,000 the amount that may be recovered as noneconomic damages in this wrongful death action; and (3) whether the trial...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases