Case Title: WICKLAND, ADM. v. Jolliff

Citation: 208 Or. 110, 298 P.2d 984

Docket Number: 

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 1956-06-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
Affirmed June 20, 1956.
Petition for rehearing denied July 11, 1956.
Mark V. Weatherford argued the cause for appellant. On the briefs were Weatherford & Thompson, Albany, and Laurence Morley, Lebanon.
James K. Buell argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Phillips, Coughlin, Buell & Phillips, Portland.
Before WARNER, Chief Justice, and TOOZE, LUSK, BRAND and PERRY, Justices.
AFFIRMED.
PER CURIAM.
This is an action brought by the plaintiff, as administrator, to recover damages for the alleged wrongful death of William Wickland.
*111 William Wickland was riding as a guest passenger in an automobile owned and operated by the defendant William Jolliff. While the automobile was being driven along the highway from Heppner toward Condon in eastern Oregon it struck the side of a bridge, and William Wickland was killed. In the complaint, the defendant was charged by the plaintiff with being grossly negligent and having a reckless disregard of the rights of the deceased in the operation of his vehicle. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff appeals.
The plaintiff's sole assignment of error is the modification of a requested instruction by the trial court.
It was alleged by the plaintiff and evidence was offered to show that the defendant was negligent in the following particulars:
The plaintiff proffered the following instructions:
The instruction as requested was given, except the trial court deleted therefrom the last sentence, which reads as follows:
The plaintiff complains that the instruction as given is incomplete, misleading and prejudicial, because "nowhere in the entire instruction did the court state that a verdict could be had for the appellant. * * * By omitting the last sentence of the requested instruction No. 5, the court, in effect, made it impossible for the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff * * *."
The trial court properly refused to give that portion of the instruction deleted, because the element of proximate cause is omitted. It would have been error to have given the instruction as requested for then the court would have instructed the jury that a verdict could be returned for the plaintiff by proving only that the defendant was grossly negligent.
The judgment is affirmed.