# Fairbrother v. Rinker

> Oregon Supreme Court · March 25, 1976 · 274 Or. 525

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9566408

## Case

- **Full name:** FAIRBROTHER, Appellant, v. RINKER, Respondent
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 25, 1976
- **Citations:** 274 Or. 525; 547 P.2d 605; 1976 Ore. LEXIS 899
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by McALLISTER
- **Judges:** Tongue, McAllister, O'Connell
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9566408

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9566408. Public record. Not legal advice.