William C. Perry

The case concerned a widow's lawsuit against a life insurance company to recover benefits under a policy on her late husband's life, which the insurer had denied based on alleged material misrepresentations in the application about the insured's marital status and foreign travel plans. The trial court entered judgment for the defendant insurer after finding the statements false and material. On appeal, the court analyzed whether the insurer had met its burden to prove materiality, particularly noting the lack of evidence that the company would have rejected the application had the insured accurately reported being single rather than married, and considered the effect of the insurer's agent having been informed of the travel plans along with the adhesive nature of insurance contracts under entire-contract statutes.

business & regulatory

This case involved a suit for partition of proceeds from the sale of real property originally held by Robert and Elsie Palmer as tenants by the entirety. After their separation, a limited separation decree, a Mexican divorce, and Robert's conveyance of his interest to plaintiff Beverly Savage (whom he later married), the trial court dismissed the complaint, awarding the full proceeds to Elsie based on equitable considerations including prior marital property divisions and contributions. The Oregon Supreme Court held that in a partition action, a court may only adjust interests based on equities arising from the cotenancy relationship itself, not from the parties' marital history or other broader equities. The court therefore remanded the case for a determination limited to the parties' respective contributions to the property's purchase and maintenance, along with any applicable offsets or presumptions of gift between spouses.

propertyfamily lawprocedure

In Dodge v. Tradewell Stores, Inc., the plaintiff sued the defendant grocery store for personal injuries after slipping and falling in a puddle of water that had leaked from a cooler onto the asbestos or vinyl tile floor. A jury returned a verdict in the plaintiff's favor, but the trial court granted the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the ground that there was no evidence the water made the floor more slippery. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding that the jury could properly infer from common knowledge that a wet tile floor with a glossy finish becomes slippery and hazardous, even if treated with skid-resistant wax, and that such an inference supported the verdict without need for additional expert or direct testimony. The court overruled prior precedent to the extent it had required more specific proof of slipperiness and directed reinstatement of the jury's verdict. The sole dissenting justice did not join the opinion.

torts & liability

The case involved a wrongful death action brought by the executrix of a driver killed when his car went off a highway at a junction, alleging negligence by state highway officials in the planning, design, signage, and maintenance of the road. The defendants moved to quash service of summons, asserting that as state officers and employees they were immune from suit. The court held that immunity should be raised by demurrer rather than a motion to quash, overruled prior precedent allowing the latter practice, and prospectively required appeals only from final judgments rather than orders quashing service. It treated the present motion as testing whether the complaint stated a claim despite immunity, while noting that the cause arose before the Oregon Tort Claims Act but that similar issues could persist under the new statute.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved contractors who performed remodeling work on a residence, assigned the payment contract and securing trust deed to a financing company (Alcoa), and later sought to foreclose the trust deed after the financing company reassigned the rights back following a separate lawsuit. In the prior action, a court had ruled that the contractors failed to perform the work in a workmanlike manner, leading Alcoa to recover its payment. The contractors then attempted to enforce the original contract against the homeowners through foreclosure, but the trial court denied relief. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the prior determination bound the contractors under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, even without mutuality of parties, because the key issue of substantial performance was identical and had been fully litigated. The court reasoned that plaintiffs could not recover on the contract or enforce the trust deed without showing substantial performance, which had already been decided against them.

procedureproperty

This case involved a lawsuit by Waterway Terminals Co. against contractors including P. S. Lord Mechanical Contractors for fire damage to a dock and warehouse under construction in Portland, where Lord’s welding work on cargo lifts allegedly caused the blaze through sparks and slag igniting creosote-impregnated timbers. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff based on jury verdicts finding negligence, and the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that jury instructions on contributory negligence were not erroneous because they referred to the cause of the overall damage in context, not merely the fire’s ignition, and that the plaintiff held the beneficial interest and risk of loss in the damaged lifts at the time of the incident based on contract performance and prior appeal rulings.

torts & liabilityproperty