Paul v. McCudden

Oregon Supreme Court

Paul v. McCudden

471 P.2d 437, 256 Or. 143, 1970 Ore. LEXIS 299

CourtOregon Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 9, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 471 P.2d 437 (Paul v. McCudden) 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

Paul v. McCudden, 471 P.2d 437, 256 Or. 143, 1970 Ore. LEXIS 299 (Or. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff was awarded a jury verdict for $10,000 general damages and $15,000 punitive damages for an *144 alleged assault committed on plaintiff by defendant’s agents. During the trial, defendant failed to move for a directed verdict and failed to except to any of the instructions given by the trial court and does not otherwise call to our attention any alleged errors of the trial court made at any time during the trial. Later defendant moved for a new trial on the sole ground that there was no evidence to sustain the verdict. The motion was denied. Defendant’s appeal claims the trial court erred in denying its motion.

In Wills v. Petros et al, 1960, 225 Or 122, 357 P2d 394, and other cases cited in that opinion we have held that “ * * when a party having knowledge of an error or an irregularity during the trial fails to call it to the attention of the court and remains silent, speculating on the result, he is deemed to have waived the error, and the denial of a motion for a new trial upon that ground presents no reviewable question. Schafer v. Fraser, 206 Or 446, 489-490, 290 P2d 190, 294 P2d 609; State v. Foot You, 24 Or 61, 68, 32 P 1031, 33 P 537.’ ” Wills v. Petros et al, supra, at page 129.

The judgment must be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff was awarded a jury verdict for $10,000 general damages and $15,000 punitive damages for an *144 alleged assault committed on plaintiff by defendant’s agents. During the trial, defendant failed to move for a directed verdict and failed to except to any of the instructions given by the trial court and does not otherwise call to our attention any alleged errors of the trial court made at any time during the trial. Later defendant moved for a new trial on the sole ground that there was no evidence to sustain the verdict. The motion was denied. Defendant’s appeal claims the trial court erred in denying its motion.

In Wills v. Petros et al, 1960, 225 Or 122, 357 P2d 394, and other cases cited in that opinion we have held that “ * * when a party having knowledge of an error or an irregularity during the trial fails to call it to the attention of the court and remains silent, speculating on the result, he is deemed to have waived the error, and the denial of a motion for a new trial upon that ground presents no reviewable question. Schafer v. Fraser, 206 Or 446, 489-490, 290 P2d 190, 294 P2d 609; State v. Foot You, 24 Or 61, 68, 32 P 1031, 33 P 537.’ ” Wills v. Petros et al, supra, at page 129.

The judgment must be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

471 P.2d 437, 256 Or. 143, 1970 Ore. LEXIS 299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-v-mccudden-or-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack