Chapter 815

 

      815.015

 

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      Authority of Motor Vehicles Division to adopt motor vehicle inspection program, (1974) Vol 36, p 1107

 

      815.020

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      “Endanger” means to pose probable risk of harm or loss. State v. Stookey, 255 Or App 489, 297 P3d 548 (2013)

 

      815.125

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      If a party is in violation of a motor vehicle equipment statute, he is negligent as a matter of law unless he introduces evidence from which trier of fact could find that party was acting as a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances. Freund v. DeBuse, 264 Or 447, 506 P2d 491 (1973)

 

      Where driver admitted operation of loaded truck with defective brakes in violation of this section, in absence of showing of “legitimate excuse,” driver was negligent as matter of law. Gray v. Lahl, 284 Or 111, 585 P2d 664 (1978)

 

      815.220

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

In general

 

      “Material” means something that has physical substance. State v. Elmore, 241 Or App 419, 250 P3d 439 (2011)

 

      Crack in windshield is does not prohibit or impair ability to see in or out of vehicle. State v. Elmore, 241 Or App 419, 250 P3d 439 (2011)

 

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      Use of vision-obscuring material, (1980) Vol 40, p 198

 

      815.235

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute (ORS 483.450)

 

      Failure to comply with this section raises a rebuttable presumption of negligence. Cutsforth v. Kinzua Corp., 267 Or 423, 517 P2d 640 (1973)

 

In general

 

      Rearview-mirror requirement may be satisfied by presence of side-mounted mirror that meets requirements of this section. State v. Lawson, 300 Or App 292, 454 P3d 20 (2019), Sup Ct review denied

 

      815.270

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Cracked windshield on defendant’s vehicle was not “encumbrance” to provide officer, who stopped defendant, with probable cause to believe windshield condition violated this section because violation requires item extrinsic to vehicle rather than intrinsic condition of vehicle to obstruct defendant’s view or operation of vehicle. State v. Anderson, 259 Or App 448, 314 P3d 335 (2013)

 

      815.310

 

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS

 

Under former similar statute

 

      Constitutionality of testing provisions, (1976) Vol 37, p 1153

 

      815.410

 

      See annotations under ORS 646.860 in permanent edition.