Morast v. James, 304 Or. 571

Summary

The Oregon Supreme Court held that evidence concerning a plaintiff's failure to use an available safety belt presents a comparative fault issue rather than a mitigation-of-damages issue. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision reversing the judgment and remanded for a new trial with the safety-belt defense submitted as comparative fault.

Holdings

1. A safety-belt defense based on a plaintiff's failure to use an available and operational safety belt is a matter of comparative fault, not mitigation of damages.
2. The trial court's instruction was erroneous because it submitted the safety-belt defense as mitigation of damages rather than as comparative fault.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a plaintiff's failure to use an available and operational safety belt is properly treated as failure to mitigate damages.
2. Whether the trial court's safety-belt jury instruction was legally erroneous.
3. Whether the safety-belt defense should be submitted as a question of comparative fault rather than mitigation of damages.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded