giving of the following instruction in Oregon

12 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1931–1982 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (1)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Bonnergreen or · 1965 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1968–1968 2 sentences 1968In State v. Bonner, 1965, 241 Or 404, 407, 408 , 406 P2d 160, 161, 162 , the following appears: “The defendant also claims the court erred in the giving of the following instruction: ‘False and contradictory statements made by a defendant, if any, are circumstances which may be taken into consideration by you in determining the guilt or innocence of a defendant.’ “In addition to the above instruction, the court also gave the following general statutory instruction relative to the same matter: ‘A witness shown to be false in one part of his or her testimony is to be distrusted in others. 1968In State v. Bonner, 1965, 241 Or 404, 407, 408 , 406 P2d 160, 161, 162 , the following appears: “The defendant also claims the court erred in the giving of the following instruction: ‘False and contradictory statements made by a defendant, if any, are circumstances which may be taken into consideration by you in determining the guilt or innocence of a defendant.’ “In addition to the above instruction, the court also gave the following general statutory instruction relative to the same matter: ‘A witness shown to be false in one part of his or her testimony is to be distrusted in others.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (14)

Case	Cited	Years
Phillips v. Kimwood MacHine Company green or · 1974 2 sentences 1982The next assignment of error is the giving of the following instruction: “A product may be shown to be defective if at the time of its design, manufacture or installation it contained a component part which could cause its failure to perform safely under circumstance which from common knowledge the average user reasonably could have expected the assembled and installed product to perform safely.” (Emphasis supplied.) The instruction, of course, is not applicable after the decision in Phillips v. Kimwood Machine Co., 269 Or 485 , 492 n 16, 501, 525 P2d 1033 (1974). 1982The next assignment of error is the giving of the following instruction: “A product may be shown to be defective if at the time of its design, manufacture or installation it contained a component part which could cause its failure to perform safely under circumstance which from common knowledge the average user reasonably could have expected the assembled and installed product to perform safely.” (Emphasis supplied.) The instruction, of course, is not applicable after the decision in Phillips v. Kimwood Machine Co., 269 Or 485 , 492 n 16, 501, 525 P2d 1033 (1974).	1	1982–1982
Crewse v. Munroe neutral or · 1960 2 sentences 1977Plaintiff first assigns as error the giving of the following instruction: "The [res ipsa loquitur] inference does not apply where there are two or more possible causes for the damage, for only one of which the defendant would be responsible.” This instruction was derived from Crewse v. Munroe, 224 Or 174, 177 , 355 P2d 637 (1960), but it did not include the entire Crewse instruction. 1977Plaintiff first assigns as error the giving of the following instruction: "The [res ipsa loquitur] inference does not apply where there are two or more possible causes for the damage, for only one of which the defendant would be responsible.” This instruction was derived from Crewse v. Munroe, 224 Or 174, 177 , 355 P2d 637 (1960), but it did not include the entire Crewse instruction.	1	1977–1977
Zeinemann v. Gasser green wis · 1947 2 sentences 1963The Wisconsin court adequately stated the ground of these decisions as follows: “Counsel concede that this court in Zeinemann v. Gasser (1947), 251 Wis. 238, 247 , 29 N. W. (2d) 49 , considering whether damages awarded by a jury were excessive, said: “ ‘The jury had a right to award damages based on economic conditions existing at the time the verdict was rendered, and this court will give recognition to economic conditions in reviewing verdicts so rendered.’ “However, counsel contend that there is a valid distinction between a rule which permits the jury to take into account economic conditio 1963The Wisconsin court adequately stated the ground of these decisions as follows: “Counsel concede that this court in Zeinemann v. Gasser (1947), 251 Wis. 238, 247 , 29 N. W. (2d) 49 , considering whether damages awarded by a jury were excessive, said: “ ‘The jury had a right to award damages based on economic conditions existing at the time the verdict was rendered, and this court will give recognition to economic conditions in reviewing verdicts so rendered.’ “However, counsel contend that there is a valid distinction between a rule which permits the jury to take into account economic conditio	1	1963–1963
Haltom v. Fellows green or · 1937 2 sentences 1962However, when a car skids on the left-hand side of the highway and invades that portion of the highway properly belonging to a motor vehicle approaching in the opposite direction, the burden is upon the driver upon the wrong side of the highway to justify his violation of the law of the road.'" 157 Or 514 at 532 . 1962However, when a car skids on the left-hand side of the highway and invades that portion of the highway properly belonging to a motor vehicle approaching in the opposite direction, the burden is upon the driver upon the wrong side of the highway to justify his violation of the law of the road.’ ” 157 Or 514 at 532 .	1	1962–1962
Schassen v. Columbia Gorge Motor Coach System neutral or · 1928 2 sentences 1951Angel-G-ervais highway had the right to assume that all other persons using that highway would obey the law and he was not bound to keep a lookout for others who may violate the law.” (Italics ours.) 555 This instruction was apparently taken verbatim from the case of Schassen v. Columbia Gorge Motor Coach System, 126 Or. 363 , 270 P. 530 . 1951Angel-G-ervais highway had the right to assume that all other persons using that highway would obey the law and he was not bound to keep a lookout for others who may violate the law.” (Italics ours.) 555 This instruction was apparently taken verbatim from the case of Schassen v. Columbia Gorge Motor Coach System, 126 Or. 363 , 270 P. 530 .	1	1951–1951
Cook v. Retzlaff neutral or · 1940 2 sentences 1948Cook v. Retzlaff, 163 Or. 683 , 99 P. (2d) 22 ; Davis v. Puckett Co., 144 Or. 332 , 23 P. (2d) 909 . 533 Error is assigned on the giving of the following instruction: “ ‘ A vehicle shall normally be driven in the lane nearest the right-hand edge or curb of the highway when said lane is available for travel except when overtaking another vehicle or in preparation for a left turn.’ **** “The provisions of the statutes of the State of Oregon which have just been called to your attention are what the Court referred to in speaking of negligence per se. 1948*Cook v. Retzlaff, 163 Or. 683 , 99 P. (2d) 22 ; Davis v. Puckett Co., 144 Or. 332 , 23 P. (2d) 909 . 533 Error is assigned on the giving of the following instruction: “ ‘ A vehicle shall normally be driven in the lane nearest the right-hand edge or curb of the highway when said lane is available for travel except when overtaking another vehicle or in preparation for a left turn.’ ******* “The provisions of the statutes of the State of Oregon which have just been called to your attention are what the Court referred to in speaking of negligence per se.	1	1948–1948
Davis v. W. H. Puckett Co. neutral or · 1933 2 sentences 1948Cook v. Retzlaff, 163 Or. 683 , 99 P. (2d) 22 ; Davis v. Puckett Co., 144 Or. 332 , 23 P. (2d) 909 . 533 Error is assigned on the giving of the following instruction: “ ‘ A vehicle shall normally be driven in the lane nearest the right-hand edge or curb of the highway when said lane is available for travel except when overtaking another vehicle or in preparation for a left turn.’ **** “The provisions of the statutes of the State of Oregon which have just been called to your attention are what the Court referred to in speaking of negligence per se. 1948*Cook v. Retzlaff, 163 Or. 683 , 99 P. (2d) 22 ; Davis v. Puckett Co., 144 Or. 332 , 23 P. (2d) 909 . 533 Error is assigned on the giving of the following instruction: “ ‘ A vehicle shall normally be driven in the lane nearest the right-hand edge or curb of the highway when said lane is available for travel except when overtaking another vehicle or in preparation for a left turn.’ ******* “The provisions of the statutes of the State of Oregon which have just been called to your attention are what the Court referred to in speaking of negligence per se.	1	1948–1948
Díaz v. Barceló neutral prsupreme · 1920 1 sentence 1944It was held in Wilkes v. Cornelius, 21 Or. 348 , 28 P. 135 , that when valuable services are rendered by a child to his parent there is a presumption, because of the existing relationship, that the services are rendered gratuitously, and that such presumption can be overcome only by an express agreement or understanding between the parties.	1	1944–1944
Wilkes v. Cornelius green or · 1891 1 sentence 1944It was held in Wilkes v. Cornelius, 21 Or. 348 , 28 P. 135 , that when valuable services are rendered by a child to his parent there is a presumption, because of the existing relationship, that the services are rendered gratuitously, and that such presumption can be overcome only by an express agreement or understanding between the parties.	1	1944–1944
Maneff v. Lamer green or · 1934 2 sentences 1942The instruction — even if erroneous — did not prejudice the rights of the defendants. 513 Assignment of Error VI concerns the giving of the following instruction: “I further instruct you that it is the duty of the driver of a motor vehicle in approaching a pedestrian lane to observe whether pedestrians are crossing thereon and, if so, to give them an opportunity to pass in safety and, if necessary for their protection, to check the speed of his car or even to stop and wait until all danger of injuring any pedestrian is passed.” This instruction is in keeping with the law as announced in Manef 1942The instruction — even if erroneous — did not prejudice the rights of the defendants. 513 Assignment of Error VI concerns the giving of the following instruction: “I further instruct you that it is the duty of the driver of a motor vehicle in approaching a pedestrian lane to observe whether pedestrians are crossing thereon and, if so, to give them an opportunity to pass in safety and, if necessary for their protection, to check the speed of his car or even to stop and wait until all danger of injuring any pedestrian is passed.” This instruction is in keeping with the law as announced in Manef	1	1942–1942
Snabel v. Barber green or · 1931 2 sentences 1940In Snabel v. Barber, 137 Or. 88 , 300 P. 331 , the appellants assigned as error the giving of the following instruction: “It was the duty of the defendants to drive their automobile in a careful and prudent manner and at a speed not greater than is reasonable and proper and no person is permitted to drive an automobile at such a speed as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person, and if defendants failed to comply with this rule of law they would be negligent and if this was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries and plaintiff was not negligent then your verdict should be for t 1940In Snabel v. Barber, 137 Or. 88 , 300 P. 331 , the appellants assigned as error the giving of the following instruction: “It was the duty of the defendants to drive their automobile in a careful and prudent manner and at a speed not greater than is reasonable and proper and no person is permitted to drive an automobile at such a speed as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person, and if defendants failed to comply with this rule of law they would be negligent and if this was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries and plaintiff was not negligent then your verdict should be for t	1	1940–1940
Green v. Ruffin green va · 1924 2 sentences 1933The contention of defendant in this instance is that a pedestrian about to cross a road and seeing a car approaching has no right to “calculate upon” passing in front of the car, and in support of this contention the case of Green v. Ruffin, 141 Va. 628 ( 125 S. E. 742 , 127 S. E. 486 ), is cited and quoted from, as follows: “It is not the duty of pedestrians to make mathematical calculations before crossing streets in front of automobiles, but to exercise ordinary care for their safety”. 1933The contention of defendant in this instance is that a pedestrian about to cross a road and seeing a car approaching has no right to “calculate upon” passing in front of the car, and in support of this contention the case of Green v. Ruffin, 141 Va. 628 ( 125 S. E. 742 , 127 S. E. 486 ), is cited and quoted from, as follows: “It is not the duty of pedestrians to make mathematical calculations before crossing streets in front of automobiles, but to exercise ordinary care for their safety”.	1	1933–1933
Triplett v. Commonwealth green va · 1925 1 sentence 1933The contention of defendant in this instance is that a pedestrian about to cross a road and seeing a car approaching has no right to “calculate upon” passing in front of the car, and in support of this contention the case of Green v. Ruffin, 141 Va. 628 ( 125 S. E. 742 , 127 S. E. 486 ), is cited and quoted from, as follows: “It is not the duty of pedestrians to make mathematical calculations before crossing streets in front of automobiles, but to exercise ordinary care for their safety”.	1	1933–1933
Hinckley v. Marsh neutral or · 1928 2 sentences 1931Indeed, the instruction is in the language of the Motor Vehicle Act. (§ 55-513, Oregon Code 1930.) Defendants also predicate error on the giving of the following instruction: “If the pedestrian observes vehicles in the street at such distance from the intersection that would lead a reasonable person to believe that she can cross safely before the arrival of such vehicle, she has a right to cross, and if the driver of the vehicle, after the pedestrian has entered the intersection and is engaged in crossing, finds that, if he continues his rate of speed and crosses without slackening his speed o 1931Indeed, the instruction is in the language of the Motor Vehicle Act. (§ 55-513, Oregon Code 1930.) Defendants also predicate error on the giving of the following instruction: “If the pedestrian observes vehicles in the street at such distance from the intersection that would lead a reasonable person to believe that she can cross safely before the arrival of such vehicle, she has a right to cross, and if the driver of the vehicle, after the pedestrian has entered the intersection and is engaged in crossing, finds that, if he continues his rate of speed and crosses without slackening his speed o	1	1931–1931

Where else courts name it

CA 30 (1923–1969) OR 12 (1931–1982) IL 10 (1886–1971) WA 7 (1909–1971) AZ 6 (1932–1994) MO 6 (1891–1973) NE 5 (1891–1990) ID 4 (1909–1982) IN 4 (1979–2004) IA 4 (1877–1938) MS 3 (1930–2003) KS 3 (1873–2010) GA 3 (1980–1996) AR 3 (1936–1967) KY 2 (1926–1932) OK 2 (1915–1935) AK 2 (1978–1980) WV 2 (1982–1988) CO 2 (1913–1982)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check