Robbins v. Steve Wilson Co.

5 Citing cases

  1. Elliott v. Callan

    466 P.2d 600 (Or. 1970)   Cited 1 times

    In our most recent decision on this issue we held admissible evidence that using an A-frame with two straps and one to dump short logs was a common practice in the area. Robbins v. Steve Wilson Company, 255 Or. 4, 463 P.2d 585 (1970). Obviously, this did not point to anything the defendant did but permitted the jury to judge the defendant's conduct in light of the common conduct of others.

  2. Bailey v. Polygon Nw. Co.

    3:22-cv-00292-YY (D. Or. Nov. 23, 2022)

    Robbins v. Steve Wilson Co., 255 Or. 4, 7 (1970) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the CSFC's best practice guidelines, if admissible, serve as evidence of industry custom, not a distinct standard of care against which defendants' conduct is assessed.

  3. Rice v. Hyster Co.

    540 P.2d 989 (Or. 1975)   Cited 8 times
    In Rice v. Hyster Co., 273 Or. 191, 540 P.2d 989 (1975), in an analogous situation the court assumed without deciding that evidence of such safety regulations would have some probative value as to "the use of the product by the purchaser which the manufacturer might reasonably anticipate."

    In any event, we hold that any such error was not prejudicial because, among other reasons previously stated, it was made clear to the jury by other evidence that it was "against the law" and "against the safety code" to "ride the forks" and that there was a "safety regulation" against doing so. In support of defendants' contention that the Basic Safety Code was admissible to rebut plaintiff's evidence of custom and practice defendants cite Robbins v. Steve Wilson Co., 255 Or. 4, 463 P.2d 585 (1970), as holding that evidence of a custom contrary to provisions of the Basic Safety Code cannot be received or considered. In that case, however, this court held (at p 12) that although such evidence was inadmissible on the issue whether the defendant violated a provision of the Basic Safety Code, such evidence was admissible on a separate issue as presented in that case whether defendant was negligent in failing to act as a reasonable and prudent employer.

  4. Valley Inland v. Clack. Water District

    43 Or. App. 527 (Or. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 7 times

    We need not decide this question because there is substantial evidence supporting the trial court's determination that VIPCO failed to meet its burden of showing that delay in furnishing the site, as opposed to delay from the strike or from VIPCO's own mistaken estimate or inefficiency, was the cause of the damage. The question of causation is one of fact, Celorie v. Roberts Bros., Inc., 202 Or. 671, 682, 276 P.2d 416 (1954), overruled on other grounds Robbins v. Steve Wilson Co., 255 Or. 4, 12, 463 P.2d 585 (1970), and we confine our review to whether the trial court's conclusion is supported by any evidence. We so find. VIPCO offered the testimony of its president and vice president that the four and a half month estimate was based on examination of job records from a prior reservoir job of similar size and design with which they had been involved while employed by another company. Concrete work on that project had taken five and a half months but, because the present reservoir had fewer columns, wall segments and total concrete, they felt the work would take less time.

  5. Hval v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.

    592 P.2d 1046 (Or. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 5 times

    Such evidence, although not dispositive of the issue, Texas Pacific Ry. Co. v. Behymer, 189 U.S. 468, 470, 23 S Ct 622, 47 L Ed 905 (1903), was relevant to establish plaintiff's duty of due care toward himself. Robbins v. Steve Wilson Co., 255 Or. 4, 7, 463 P.2d 585 (1970); W. Prosser, Torts 166-67, § 33 (4th ed 1971); 2 J. Wigmore, supra, 488, § 461. Based on the testimony by the assistant trainmaster, it would have been proper for the jury to find that plaintiff had not exercised due care because he failed to check the switch on Track No. 3 on the evening he was injured.