Burd v. Gust

Oregon Supreme Court

Burd v. Gust

362 P.2d 770, 228 Or. 59, 1961 Ore. LEXIS 335

DecidedJune 14, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 362 P.2d 770 (Burd v. Gust) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burd v. Gust, 362 P.2d 770, 228 Or. 59, 1961 Ore. LEXIS 335 (Or. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM..,

This action resulted from an automobile accident. The accident occurred on U. S. Highway No. 101 a few miles north of Tillamook. Defendant was driving his car in a northerly direction on that highway. Plaintiff entered the highway from a side road in a car operated by her husband. The cars. collided. After both sides rested defendant moved for a directed verdict. . The court, allowed the motion, but on request of plaintiff (ORS 18.140(2)) submitted the case to the jury. The jury found for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. The principal assignments are directed at the giving or failure to give certain instructions. Two assignments are directed at the exclusion of evidence offered by plaintiff.

All of the assignments present routine questions. They have required that we examine the record to decide if .there was or was not evidence to justify the giving or refusal to give the questioned instructions. Nothing would be gained by reciting the evidence in respect to each assignment. We have concluded that the court properly instructed the jury on all issues and there was no error in failing to give the requested instructions.-' Nor did the trial court err in rejecting the offered evidence.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM..,

This action resulted from an automobile accident. The accident occurred on U. S. Highway No. 101 a few miles north of Tillamook. Defendant was driving his car in a northerly direction on that highway. Plaintiff entered the highway from a side road in a car operated by her husband. The cars. collided. After both sides rested defendant moved for a directed verdict. . The court, allowed the motion, but on request of plaintiff (ORS 18.140(2)) submitted the case to the jury. The jury found for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. The principal assignments are directed at the giving or failure to give certain instructions. Two assignments are directed at the exclusion of evidence offered by plaintiff.

All of the assignments present routine questions. They have required that we examine the record to decide if .there was or was not evidence to justify the giving or refusal to give the questioned instructions. Nothing would be gained by reciting the evidence in respect to each assignment. We have concluded that the court properly instructed the jury on all issues and there was no error in failing to give the requested instructions.-' Nor did the trial court err in rejecting the offered evidence.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

362 P.2d 770, 228 Or. 59, 1961 Ore. LEXIS 335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burd-v-gust-or-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack