Bjorndal v. Weitman
Oregon Supreme Court
184 P.3d 1115 (2008)
- Written by Lauren Petersen, JD
Facts
Bjorndal (plaintiff) was driving down a highway while looking for her father, who was waiting on the side of the highway with a broken down car. Weitman (defendant) was following Bjorndal in his car. Bjorndal spotted her father on the right side of the road and quickly decelerated, signaled, and turned left into a stopping area. Weitman attempted to pass Bjorndal on the left, but did not see the left turn signal until Bjorndal’s car began to turn, and he collided with Bjorndal’s car. Bjorndal brought a negligence claim against Weitman, and the jury found in favor of Weitman. On appeal, Bjorndal claimed that the trial court erred by charging the jury with an “emergency instruction.” The emergency instruction ordered the jury not to find negligence if Weitman chose to act as a reasonable person might act in an emergency situation, even if Weitman did not make the wisest possible choice.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Balmer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
