May v. Portland Jeep
Oregon Supreme Court
509 P.2d 24 (1973)
- Written by Emily Laird, JD
Facts
Martin May (plaintiff) suffered injuries to his teeth, mouth, neck, back, chest, and leg when his Jeep rolled over. May was attempting to drive over a sand dike adjacent to a river when the Jeep flipped, landing upside down. The pressure of impact caused the wheel wells to collapse on Jeep’s tires, bringing the roll bar down across the back of May’s neck, pinning his face between the steering wheel and the ground. May brought a product-defect claim against Portland Jeep (defendant), the automotive dealership where May bought his Jeep. May claimed his injuries were far greater than they would have been if the Jeep’s roll bar had not collapsed. In the trial court, the jury found in favor of May. The trial court entered a judgment in May’s favor. Portland Jeep appealed, filing a motion for nonsuit on the ground that there was insufficient evidence that May’s injuries were the result of the roll bar’s collapse. Portland Jeep also argued that there was insufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude May’s injuries would not have occurred in the absence of the roll bar’s collapse.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Holman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
