Opinion

Houston v. Maunula

  • 121 Or. 552
  • 255 P. 477
Court
Oregon Supreme Court
Filed
May 24, 1927
Status
Published
Author
Belt
On the bench
Coshow, Belt, Burnett, McBride, Rand, Bean, Brown
Cited by
3 cases

The opinion

BELT, J.,

Dissenting. — The instructions, considered in their entirety, fully and fairly conveyed to the jury the idea that the conduct of plaintiff in crossing the street at time of accident was to be

*561

measured by tbe degree of care which a person of ordinary prudence and caution would have exercised under the same circumstances. It was technical error to require plaintiff to use “every precaution to avert apparent accident,” but, in the light of the entire charge, such does not, in my opinion, justify a reversal.

Bean and Brown, JJ., concur in this dissent.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.