Teller v. Heidrick

Oregon Supreme Court

Teller v. Heidrick

382 P.2d 860, 234 Or. 473, 1963 Ore. LEXIS 453

DecidedJune 12, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 382 P.2d 860 (Teller v. Heidrick) 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

Teller v. Heidrick, 382 P.2d 860, 234 Or. 473, 1963 Ore. LEXIS 453 (Or. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This action resulted from a collision between two trucks. Plaintiff was driving a garbage truck on a [474]*474highway extending easterly from Boseburg. He was going east. Defendant’s logging truck, driven by an employee, was following plaintiff’s truck. Plaintiff attempted to make a left-hand turn into a driveway on the north side of the highway at a time when defendant’s driver was attempting to pass plaintiff’s truck. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

The assignments relate to motions for nonsuit and a directed verdict; the allowance of an amendment to the complaint; the refusal of the trial court to withdraw certain specifications of negligence and an exception to certain instructions to the jury.

The case was a simple one which basically called for the jury to resolve conflicts in the evidence in respect to 'the sufficiency of the signal, if any, that plaintiff gave prior to attempting a left-hand turn; and the adequacy of plaintiff’s lookout. The court correctly instructed the jury on the law involved in deciding this uncomplicated case. The jury could not have been misled as to its function.

We find no merit in any of the assignments and decline to discuss them further. Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This action resulted from a collision between two trucks. Plaintiff was driving a garbage truck on a [474]*474highway extending easterly from Boseburg. He was going east. Defendant’s logging truck, driven by an employee, was following plaintiff’s truck. Plaintiff attempted to make a left-hand turn into a driveway on the north side of the highway at a time when defendant’s driver was attempting to pass plaintiff’s truck. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

The assignments relate to motions for nonsuit and a directed verdict; the allowance of an amendment to the complaint; the refusal of the trial court to withdraw certain specifications of negligence and an exception to certain instructions to the jury.

The case was a simple one which basically called for the jury to resolve conflicts in the evidence in respect to 'the sufficiency of the signal, if any, that plaintiff gave prior to attempting a left-hand turn; and the adequacy of plaintiff’s lookout. The court correctly instructed the jury on the law involved in deciding this uncomplicated case. The jury could not have been misled as to its function.

We find no merit in any of the assignments and decline to discuss them further. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

382 P.2d 860, 234 Or. 473, 1963 Ore. LEXIS 453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teller-v-heidrick-or-1963.