explaining that, although instructions could be interpreted as conveying the law correctly, “the instruction would still be prejudicial and reversible error if it can also be interpreted to bear the meaning which plain- tiff attributes to it”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that, although instructions could be interpreted as conveying the law correctly, “the instruction would still be prejudicial and reversible error if it can also be interpreted to bear the meaning which plain- tiff attributes to it”
- instruction that erroneously permitted jury to consider defendant's financial condition in assessing damages was reversible error because it could have prejudiced plaintiff's chance of recovery
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
McALLISTER, J.,
concurring in part; dissenting in part.
Since the witness Castrapel not only identified the motion picture taken by him, but also testified about his observations of plaintiff and his conclusion that plaintiff did not "exhibit any signs of injury or disability” the plaintiff was entitled to show that Castrapel was employed and paid by Allstate Insurance Company. I think this issue is controlled by Smith v. Pacific Truck Express, 164 Or 318 , 100 P2d 474 (1940). I therefore concur in part and dissent in part.