Baden v. Sunset Fuel Co.

16 Citing cases

  1. Flansberg v. Paulson

    399 P.2d 356 (Or. 1965)   Cited 10 times

    The court rejected the verdict in accord with the established rule that in order to support an award of special damages there must be an award of general damages. Sedillo v. City of Portland, 234 Or. 28, 380 P.2d 115 (1963); Baden v. Sunset Fuel Co., 225 Or. 116, 357 P.2d 410 (1960), and cases there cited. The court again instructed the jury that if it found that plaintiff was entitled to damages, it should first determine the amount of general damages sustained by plaintiff, and then determine the amount of her special damages, if any.

  2. Wheeler v. Huston

    605 P.2d 1339 (Or. 1980)   Cited 12 times
    Confirming that objection to verdict for claimed economic damages only is subject to waiver by failure to object while jury is present

    222 Or at 523-524. Also in 1960, Baden v. Sunset Fuel Co., 225 Or. 116, 357 P.2d 410, reached this court. Baden was an action at law for personal injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the defendant's negligence.

  3. Baker v. English

    324 Or. 585 (Or. 1997)   Cited 34 times
    Holding that the rights of an aggrieved party are substantially affected if the outcome either would have or may have been different had the error not occurred

    (Emphasis added.)See Baden v. Sunset Fuel Co., 225 Or. 116, 120, 357 P.2d 410 (1960) (citing ORS 19.125 (2) and stating the "familiar precept that not every error entitles a litigant to a new trial but only error which has resulted in prejudice to him"). That statute sets forth the test โ€” whether a trial court's error "substantially affect[ed] the rights of a party" โ€” under which we must determine whether an error requires reversal or modification. A determination that an error did substantially affect the rights of a party within the meaning of ORS 19.125 (2) leads to the conclusion that the trial court committed "prejudicial," or "harmful," error, requiring reversal or modification of the trial court's judgment.

  4. Saum v. Bonar

    484 P.2d 294 (Or. 1971)   Cited 12 times
    In Saum v. Bonar, 258 Or. 532, 484 P.2d 294 (1971), this court recognized that a jury may be justified in awarding special damages and in refusing to award substantial general damages in a case where, as in this case, the jury could have found that plaintiff's injuries were at most minimal, as distinguished from a case in which plaintiff clearly suffered some serious injury, and that under such circumstances the rule of Flansberg v. Paulson, 239 Or. 610, 399 P.2d 356 (1965), is not applicable. Cf. Chopp v. Miller, 264 Or. 138, 504 P.2d 106 (1972).

    Accordingly, we also hold that the rule of Flansberg, and other decisions to the same effect, has no application under these particular facts. These cases include the following: Hall v. Cornett, 193 Or. 634, 240 P.2d 231 (1952); Stein v. Handy, 212 Or. 225, 319 P.2d 935 (1957); Baden v. Sunset Fuel Co., 225 Or. 116, 357 P.2d 410 (1960). For all of these reasons, we remand this case to the trial court with instructions to reinstate the verdict of the jury.

  5. Lundquist v. Irvine

    243 Or. 274 (Or. 1966)   Cited 5 times

    Such an order will not be reversed if it can be sustained on any ground in the motion whether referred to in the order or not. Durnford v. Worden, 242 Or. 536, 410 P.2d 1020 (1966); Baden v. Sunset Fuel Co., 225 Or. 116, 121, 357 P.2d 410 (1960); Hillman v. North. Wasco County PUD, 213 Or. 264, 275, 323 P.2d 644 (1958). One of the grounds specified in plaintiff's motion for a new trial was that the court committed error by limiting its instructions about defendant's duties to the allegation that she failed to signal.

  6. Highway Commission v. Fisch-Or

    399 P.2d 1011 (Or. 1965)   Cited 22 times
    Using the same interpretation of the term "filed" in statute relating to motions for judgments notwithstanding the verdict

    An order of a trial court granting a new trial will be sustained if it can be sustained upon any ground contained in the motion, but if there is no proper ground in the motion the order will be reversed. Baden v. Sunset Fuel Co., 225 Or. 116, 121, 357 P.2d 410 (1960). The motion for a new trial in the case at bar challenged the trial court's instruction that the jury could consider testimony about comparable sales as probative evidence of the value of the property taken, as well as evidence bearing upon the witness's qualifications to testify as a value expert.

  7. Frazee v. Brazda

    399 P.2d 346 (Or. 1965)   Cited 5 times
    Determining that $25 was not nominal damages, inasmuch as the jury "may well have concluded also that $25 was reasonable compensation for a superficial bruise or abrasion and that $25 was reasonable compensation for any medical treatment which may have been required by such an injury"

    Nominal damages are usually defined as a trivial sum and are usually represented by a judgment for one dollar or a lesser sum. See Baden v. Sunset Fuel Co., 225 Or. 116, 118, 357 P.2d 410 (1960), and authorities there cited. However, an examination of the cases will disclose that the term "nominal" as applied to damages is a relative term and will frequently vary according to the circumstances of each case. What may be substantial damages in one case may be held nominal under other circumstances.

  8. Sedillo v. City of Portland

    234 Or. 28 (Or. 1963)   Cited 12 times
    In Sedillo we approved an unsegregated verdict for only the actual special damages because "* * * there was an important question of whether or not much of plaintiff's medical expense was occasioned by the collision."

    The first verdict should have been received as a valid verdict, as the first verdict was one the jury could properly return. Their return of the second verdict was not misconduct. See Baden v. Sunset Fuel Co., 225 Or. 116, 357 P.2d 410 (1960). Amended Art VII, ยง 3, of the Oregon Constitution, provides that if, "the judgment appealed from should be changed, and the supreme court shall be of opinion that it can determine what judgment should have been entered in the court below, it shall direct such judgment to be entered in the same manner and with like effect as decrees are now entered in equity cases on appeal to the supreme court."

  9. Gonyea v. Gonyea

    232 Or. 367 (Or. 1962)   Cited 22 times
    In Gonyea v. Gonyea, 232 Or. 367, 372, 375 P.2d 808, 810, the court said: "There is no constant or standard quantity of change which will qualify.

    "No judgment shall be reversed or modified except for errors substantially affecting the rights of the parties."Baden v. Sunset Fuel Co., 225 Or. 116, 357 P.2d 410 (1960), states: "* * * It is a familiar precept that not every error entitles a litigant to a new trial but only error which has resulted in prejudice to him.

  10. Prestige Gallery, Inc. v. Napleton

    283 So. 3d 875 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019)

    We do note that there are some older cases where courts in other states have found nominal damages in excess of $75 or $100 are legally impermissible. Baden v. Sunset Fuel Co. , 225 Or. 116, 119, 357 P.2d 410 (1960) ; Gould v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. , 6 Utah 2d 187, 309 P.2d 802 (1957) ($75); Lucas v. Morrison , 286 S.W.2d 190 (1956) ($100); Moyer v. Cordell , 204 Okl. 255, 228 P.2d 645 (1951) ($105); People v. Giacobbi , 83 Cal.App. 12, 256 P. 299 (1927) ($100); Broads v. Mead , 159 Cal. 765, 116 P. 46 (1911) ($100).--------