concurring.
I concur in the opinion by the majority except for its holding to the effect that there was sufficient evidence of excessive speed so as to make it proper to submit to the jury that specification of contributory negligence. There was no competent evidence to contradict plaintiff’s testimony that he was driving 20 miles per hour on a through street, with stop signs on either side of the intersection where the accident occurred. There was, however, competent evidence to support a finding by the jury that plaintiff failed to maintain a proper lookout and to keep his automobile under proper control.
Our past decisions on this subject in similar cases have not been consistent. Compare McMullen v. Robinson, 211 Or 531, 316 P2d 503 (1957); and McReynolds v. Howland, 218 Or 566, 346 P2d 127 (1959), with Wilson v. Overbey, 223 Or 256, 354 P2d 319 (1960); and Krening v. Flanders, 225 Or 388, 358 P2d 574 (1961), and cases cited therein. In my opinion, however, this is not a proper case in which to attempt, by dissenting opinion, to either reconcile such cases or to propose the overruling of such cases as may not be consistent with a proper rule on this subject. Cf. dissenting opinion, Berg v. Mengore, 271 Or at 538, 533 P2d at 805 (1975).