Surface v. Coffman

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Surface v. Coffman

738 P.2d 1003, 86 Or. App. 223

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJuly 1, 1987

Docket82-9-141; CA A38060

StatusPublished

This text of 738 P.2d 1003 (Surface v. Coffman) 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

Surface v. Coffman, 738 P.2d 1003, 86 Or. App. 223 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In this personal injury case, the trial court allowed defendant to question plaintiff, over her objection, concerning money she received from her former husband under the terms of a dissolution judgment. Defendant asserts that the questions were relevant to plaintiffs future earning capacity. Assuming that the trial court should have sustained plaintiff s objection, the court’s error was harmless. The jury answered “no” to this special interrogatory:

“Was defendant Coffman negligent in one or more of the respects claimed in plaintiffs complaint which caused damage to plaintiff?”

The jury found that defendant was not negligent or that plaintiff suffered no damages. The challenged evidence could not have affected its decision.¹

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

In this personal injury case, the trial court allowed defendant to question plaintiff, over her objection, concerning money she received from her former husband under the terms of a dissolution judgment. Defendant asserts that the questions were relevant to plaintiffs future earning capacity. Assuming that the trial court should have sustained plaintiff s objection, the court’s error was harmless. The jury answered “no” to this special interrogatory:

“Was defendant Coffman negligent in one or more of the respects claimed in plaintiffs complaint which caused damage to plaintiff?”

The jury found that defendant was not negligent or that plaintiff suffered no damages. The challenged evidence could not have affected its decision.¹

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

738 P.2d 1003, 86 Or. App. 223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/surface-v-coffman-orctapp-1987.