Currier v. Washman, LLC

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Property Law
  • Date Filed: 01-27-2016
  • Case #: A154821
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Sercombe, P.J. for the Court; Hadlock; & Tookey
  • Full Text Opinion

Plaintiff bicyclist was an implied licensee on Defendant carwash owner’s property at the time of Plaintiff's injury. The jury properly considered evidence regarding circumstances and community norms in determining injured Plaintiff’s status, and the trial court properly denied Defendant’s motion for directed verdict. Affirmed.

Defendant carwash owner appealed trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion for directed verdict. Defendant argued that no reasonable jury could find that Plaintiff bicyclist was a licensee on the property at the time of injury because Defendant never consented to Plaintiff’s entry and because failure to object or prevent trespass is not implied consent to trespass.

The Court held that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for directed verdict. The jury can consider surrounding circumstances and customs in the community to evaluate whether Plaintiff had an implied license to be on Defendant’s property. Plaintiff presented evidence that bicyclists had no indication that they were unwelcome on the property and that community custom is for pedestrians and bicyclists to use the parking lots and driveways of stores open for business. This evidence was enough for the jury to reasonably find that Plaintiff was a licensee. Affirmed.

Advanced Search