Hunter v. Walls

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Hunter v. Walls

643 P.2d 1352, 57 Or. App. 152, 1982 Ore. App. LEXIS 2829

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 26, 1982

DocketNo. L-79-0455, CA A20563

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 643 P.2d 1352 (Hunter v. Walls) 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

Hunter v. Walls, 643 P.2d 1352, 57 Or. App. 152, 1982 Ore. App. LEXIS 2829 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

VAN HOOMISSEN, J.

Defendant appeals a judgment entered after a jury awarded plaintiff general and punitive damages for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Defendant admitted liability for the accident and for compensatory damages but not for punitive damages. The sole issue raised by defendant is whether the trial court erred in allowing plaintiffs wife to testify concerning statements made by defendant’s passenger.

Defendant first contends that the trial court erred in allowing the witness to testify concerning the remarks made to her by defendant’s passenger without first conducting an in camera hearing. Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in failing to make a preliminary determination that under the circumstances the witness’ declaration naturally called for an answer from him. Finally, defendant contends that there was no showing that he was a party to the conversation between his passenger and plaintiffs wife or that he was even paying attention to it. Defendant did not object on any of these grounds at trial. We will not consider defendant’s contentions not raised below. Portland Machinery Co. v. Sistig, 283 Or 249, 252, 583 P2d 536 (1978).

Plaintiff asks that we award ten percent damages for delay. ORS 19.160.¹ Because it does not appear that there was probable cause for taking this appeal, we grant plaintiffs request.

Affirmed. Additionally, plaintiff shall have judgment against defendant for ten percent of the judgment.

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

VAN HOOMISSEN, J.

Defendant appeals a judgment entered after a jury awarded plaintiff general and punitive damages for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Defendant admitted liability for the accident and for compensatory damages but not for punitive damages. The sole issue raised by defendant is whether the trial court erred in allowing plaintiffs wife to testify concerning statements made by defendant’s passenger.

Defendant first contends that the trial court erred in allowing the witness to testify concerning the remarks made to her by defendant’s passenger without first conducting an in camera hearing. Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in failing to make a preliminary determination that under the circumstances the witness’ declaration naturally called for an answer from him. Finally, defendant contends that there was no showing that he was a party to the conversation between his passenger and plaintiffs wife or that he was even paying attention to it. Defendant did not object on any of these grounds at trial. We will not consider defendant’s contentions not raised below. Portland Machinery Co. v. Sistig, 283 Or 249, 252, 583 P2d 536 (1978).

Plaintiff asks that we award ten percent damages for delay. ORS 19.160.¹ Because it does not appear that there was probable cause for taking this appeal, we grant plaintiffs request.

Affirmed. Additionally, plaintiff shall have judgment against defendant for ten percent of the judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

643 P.2d 1352, 57 Or. App. 152, 1982 Ore. App. LEXIS 2829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunter-v-walls-orctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack