Case ID: or-app_86/html/0223-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued and submitted February 13,
    affirmed July 1, 1987
    SURFACE, nka Surface Lewis, Appellant, v. COFFMAN, Respondent.
    
    (82-9-141; CA A38060)
    738 P2d 1003
    Diane W. Spies, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
    James C. Tait, Oregon City, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Canning, Tait & McKenzie, Oregon City.
    Thomas M. Christ, Portland, argued the cause for defendant Donald Lewis. With him on the brief were Jas Adams and Mitchell, Lang & Smith, Portland.
    Before Warden, Presiding Judge, and Joseph, Chief Judge, and Young, Judge.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

In this personal injury case, the trial court allowed defendant to question plaintiff, over her objection, concerning money she received from her former husband under the terms of a dissolution judgment. Defendant asserts that the questions were relevant to plaintiffs future earning capacity. Assuming that the trial court should have sustained plaintiff s objection, the court’s error was harmless. The jury answered “no” to this special interrogatory:

“Was defendant Coffman negligent in one or more of the respects claimed in plaintiffs complaint which caused damage to plaintiff?”

The jury found that defendant was not negligent or that plaintiff suffered no damages. The challenged evidence could not have affected its decision.

Affirmed. 
      
       Plaintiffs other assignments do not require discussion.