Schulze v. Burlington Northern Inc.

603 P.2d 780, 43 Or. App. 485, 1979 Ore. App. LEXIS 4002

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: December 3, 1979
• Docket: No. 47838, CA 13368
• Status: Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

The only issue which warrants discussion concerns i instruction requested by defendant, but not given, uring oral argument defendant acknowledged that ie second sentence of the two-sentence instruction as ambiguous, if not misleading, and in any event ould have required modification prior to its being ¡ad to the jury. Defendant argues that it was never-eless reversible error for the trial court not to give ie first sentence. We know of no Oregon law that says at it is the duty of a trial judge to dissect a requested struction and give it after discarding defective parts.

Affirmed.