Title: Van Gordon v. Portland General Electric Company

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

670 P.2d 1026 (1983)
295 Or. 811
Brock A. VAN GORDON, by Elizabeth Ann Van Gordon, His Guardian Ad Litem, Petitioner On Review,
v.
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, a Corporation, Respondent On Review.
Portland General Electric Company, a Corporation, Appellant,
v.
Kino Barker and Helene Barker, Respondents.
No. A7902-00508; CA 19901; SC 29945.

Supreme Court of Oregon, In Banc.[*]
Submitted on Petition for Review September 16, 1983.
Decided October 25, 1983.
Mark L. Cushing and Barbee B. Lyon, of Tonkon, Torp, Galen, Marmaduke & Booth, Portland, for the petition.
John R. Faust, Jr., of Schwabe, Williamson, Wyatt, Moore & Roberts, and James K. Buell, of Buell, Black & Dupuy, Portland, contra.
MEMORANDUM OPINION.
The facts in this case are set out in our opinion, Van Gordon v. PGE Co., 294 Or. 761, 662 P.2d 714 (1983).
Plaintiff petitions this court to accept review, to reverse the Court of Appeals, and to affirm the judgment in favor of the plaintiff. We decline review of all issues raised with the exception of requiring the Court of Appeals to apply the correct standard for evaluating evidential error.
OEC 103 provides:
The commentary to this rule reads:
*1027 The Oregon Evidence Code comes from Oregon Laws 1981, chapter 892, and section 101 thereof provides:
The Court of Appeals simply ignored the statutory precept that the case of Elam v. Soares, 282 Or. 93, 577 P.2d 1336 (1978), was overruled.
By reference to the concurring and dissenting opinion in the previous decision in this case by the Court of Appeals, the majority opinion in the second review by the Court of Appeals concluded that the asserted error was not harmless (slip op 2). In adopting the earlier concurring and dissenting opinion, the court erred in concluding that error is presumed to be prejudicial. The court stated:
We remand this case, which has already been argued twice to the Court of Appeals and once to this court, to apply OEC 103.
[*]  Linde, J., did not participate in this decision.