Flanery v. Lundborg

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Flanery v. Lundborg

616 P.2d 579, 48 Or. App. 225, 1980 Ore. App. LEXIS 3828

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedSeptember 15, 1980

DocketNo. A7801-01104, CA 15911

StatusPublished

This text of 616 P.2d 579 (Flanery v. Lundborg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Flanery v. Lundborg, 616 P.2d 579, 48 Or. App. 225, 1980 Ore. App. LEXIS 3828 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this negligence action plaintiff appeals a judgment of nonsuit entered in favor of defendant at the close of plaintiff’s evidence.

There is no evidence relating defendant’s alleged negligence to plaintiff’s injuries. Without evidence that defendant’s negligence was a cause in fact of plaintiff’s injuries, the jury would be required to speculate on the causal issue. The judgment of nonsuit, was proper.

Plaintiff also objects to certain items included in defendant’s cost bill. She is correct that the $14 charge for a deposition is improper. There was no showing that the deposition expense was necessary. The balance of the costs were proper. The judgment of nonsuit is affirmed and the case is remanded for entry of a corrected judgment on the cost bill.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this negligence action plaintiff appeals a judgment of nonsuit entered in favor of defendant at the close of plaintiff’s evidence.

There is no evidence relating defendant’s alleged negligence to plaintiff’s injuries. Without evidence that defendant’s negligence was a cause in fact of plaintiff’s injuries, the jury would be required to speculate on the causal issue. The judgment of nonsuit, was proper.

Plaintiff also objects to certain items included in defendant’s cost bill. She is correct that the $14 charge for a deposition is improper. There was no showing that the deposition expense was necessary. The balance of the costs were proper. The judgment of nonsuit is affirmed and the case is remanded for entry of a corrected judgment on the cost bill.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

616 P.2d 579, 48 Or. App. 225, 1980 Ore. App. LEXIS 3828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flanery-v-lundborg-orctapp-1980.