Pacific Nw Bell Tel. v. Century Home Components

494 P.2d 884
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 1, 1972
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 494 P.2d 884 (Pacific Nw Bell Tel. v. Century Home Components) 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
Pacific Nw Bell Tel. v. Century Home Components, 494 P.2d 884 (Or. 1972).

Opinion

494 P.2d 884 (1972)

PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, a Washington Corporation, et al., Appellants,
v.
CENTURY HOME COMPONENTS, Inc., a Corporation, and Wood Components Co., a Corporation, Respondents.

Supreme Court of Oregon, In Banc.

March 1, 1972.

Paul D. Clayton, and Luvaas, Cobb, Richards & Fraser, Eugene, for appellants.

Darst B. Atherly and Thwing, Atherly & Butler, Eugene, for respondent Century Home Components, Inc.

Richard Bryson, Windsor Calkins, and Bryson & Robert, Eugene, for respondent Wood Components Co.

DENECKE, Justice.

When we initially decided this case, we were of the opinion that the testimony of the witness Hood was that he had told Sgt. Ayers that he, Hood, had a statement from Jane Davis either that her brother told her he had started the fire or that she had told other people that her brother had told her he started the fire. Petitions for rehearing were filed alleging that this was incorrect. Defendants state that they have no such statements and never so contended.

A restudy of the transcript leaves us in doubt. We conclude, however, that the jury could well have inferred that such statement existed. If the jury did draw this inference it might be less likely to find that the defendants caused the fire. Because of this, the trial court should have permitted the plaintiffs' counsel to inspect the statement of Jane Davis. Questioning of the witness Hood concerning the contents of the statement would have informed the jury what Jane Davis said or did not say in the statement. The plaintiffs, therefore, *885 were prejudiced by not being permitted to examine the statement.

That part of our opinion conditioning the granting of a new trial upon the contents of the statement is withdrawn. The case is remanded for a new trial.

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

Related

State v. Cartwright
85 P.3d 305 (Oregon Supreme Court, 2004)
State v. Cartwright
20 P.3d 223 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2001)
Lang v. Oregon Nurses Ass'n
632 P.2d 472 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1981)
Rayner v. Stauffer Chemical Co.
585 P.2d 1240 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1978)
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Century Home Components, Inc.
550 P.2d 1185 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1976)
Freightliner Corporation v. Gyles
521 P.2d 1 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1974)
Hesse v. Century Home Components, Inc.
514 P.2d 871 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1973)
Rigelman v. Gilligan
506 P.2d 710 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
494 P.2d 884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pacific-nw-bell-tel-v-century-home-components-or-1972.