From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schulze v. Burlington Northern

Oregon Court of Appeals
Mar 18, 1980
603 P.2d 780 (Or. Ct. App. 1980)

Opinion

No. 47838, CA 13368

Argued and submitted November 26, 1979

Affirmed December 3, 1979 Reconsideration denied February 14, 1980 Petition for review denied March 18, 1980

Appeal from Circuit Court, Linn County.

Wendell H. Tompkins, Judge.

Roger Hennagin, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Delbert W. Johnson, Portland.

Burl L. Green, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the briefs was Green Griswold, Portland.

Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Thornton and Tanzer, Judges.


PER CURIAM

Affirmed.


The only issue which warrants discussion concerns an instruction requested by defendant, but not given. During oral argument defendant acknowledged that the second sentence of the two-sentence instruction was ambiguous, if not misleading, and in any event would have required modification prior to its being read to the jury. Defendant argues that it was nevertheless reversible error for the trial court not to give the first sentence. We know of no Oregon law that says that it is the duty of a trial judge to dissect a requested instruction and give it after discarding defective parts.

Affirmed.


]EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE IS BLANK.]


Summaries of

Schulze v. Burlington Northern

Oregon Court of Appeals
Mar 18, 1980
603 P.2d 780 (Or. Ct. App. 1980)
Case details for

Schulze v. Burlington Northern

Case Details

Full title:SCHULZE, Respondent, v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN INC., Appellant

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Mar 18, 1980

Citations

603 P.2d 780 (Or. Ct. App. 1980)
603 P.2d 780