# Mayor v. Dowsett

> Oregon Supreme Court · March 17, 1965 · 240 Or. 196

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9863716

## Case

- **Full name:** Mayor v. Dowsett
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 17, 1965
- **Citations:** 240 Or. 196; 400 P.2d 234; 1965 Ore. LEXIS 486
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by O'Connell
- **Judges:** Bossman, Perry, Sloan, O'Connell, Goodwin, Denecke, Lusk
- **Cited by:** 60 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Questioned on other grounds by Arrowood Indemnity Co. v. Fasching, 369 Or. 214 (2022).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9863716

## Opinion text

O’CONNELL, J.,
concurring.
I join in Mr. Justice Leneoke’s specially concurring opinion.
I also wish to register by disapproval of the manner in which the majority opinion deals with the problem of causation and negligence. The opinion states, “From the evidence that the defendant was negligent in failing to place a pillow under the plaintiff’s head when the anesthetic was administered, in accordance with the standard practice, a legitimate inference might be drawn that this omission was the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the plaintiff, since this precaution is taken to avoid the danger of the anesthetic ascending the spinal canal.” This states that an inference may be drawn from defendant’s negligence to the conclusion that the negligence was the proximate cause of the injury. I recognize that this formula of negligence and “proximate cause” has the blessing of this court. I still insist as I did in Dewey v. Klaweness, 233 Or 515, 519 , 379 P2d 560 (1963) that the use of the formula serves no good and invites confusion. I would state the problem in the present case as follows: Was the plaintiff’s paralysis caused by the failure of defendant to put a pillow under plaintiff’s head (i.e., was it a substantial factor *239 in bringing about this result) and if so, was defendant’s conduct negligent?
If we, on this court, do not clarify our language and thinking with respect to negligence and causation, we cannot expect the trial courts to make an effort to do so and consequently the confusion that characterizes this area of the tort law is perpetuated.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9863716. Public record. Not legal advice.