Title: Burke v. Olson

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

Affirmed December 21, 1955.
*150 C.N. Anderson, Eugene, argued the cause for appellant. On the brief were Sims & Sims, Portland, and Frank B. Reid, Eugene.
John E. Jaqua, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Evans, Thwing & Jaqua, Eugene.
AFFIRMED.
PERRY, J.
This is an action for damages for personal injuries suffered by Gerald M. Burke, a minor, in an accident which occurred on February 1, 1952, at approximately 3 p.m., on Tenth avenue in the ctiy of Cottage Grove, Oregon. Tenth avenue runs in a generally northerly and southerly direction, with Harrison grade school situated on the west side of the avenue, and a parochial school maintained by the Seventh Day Adventist Church situated almost directly across on the east side of the avenue.
It appears from the record that through some agreement with the public school authorities pupils attending the Seventh Day Adventist school are permitted to ride Cottage Grove school buses to and from the Harrison school, these pupils being unloaded at the Harrison *151 school, and then finding their way to the Adventist school. The school buses load and unload at the public school in a designated zone on the west side of Tenth avenue in front of the Harrison public school.
At the time of the accident two school buses were parked in the loading zone, and a third bus, the one Gerald was to board for his return to his home, was approaching the loading zone. Gerald, who had been standing in line with other children preparatory to boarding the third bus, observed his mother across the street at the Adventist school; he left his place in the line, passing between the buses and on into the street for the purpose of going to his mother, and in so doing collided with the motor vehicle of the defendant which was proceeding along Tenth avenue in a northerly direction at approximately 10 miles per hour.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant and the plaintiff has appealed.
1. Plaintiff assigns error in the refusal of the trial court to give the following requested instruction:
*152 The trial court instructed the jury on this phase of the controversy as follows:
*153 In these instructions given by the court the subject matter of the plaintiff's requested instruction was adequately covered. No error is committed by a trial court if the subject matter of the requested instruction is adequately set forth in the language of the trial court, and not in the requested language of a party. Hicklin v. Anders, 201 Or 128, 140, 253 P2d 897, 269 P2d 521, and cases cited therein.
2. The plaintiff also assigns as error the giving of the following instruction relative to the defendant's charge of contributory negligence by the plaintiff:
The record discloses that the city of Cottage Grove had, pursuant to authority granted by the legislature as set forth in ORS 483.210 (4), passed an ordinance reading as follows:
The record further discloses that such a defined pedestrian crossing existed across Tenth avenue approximately 350 feet south of the place where the accident occurred.
It is the plaintiff's contention that this ordinance is in conflict with ORS 485.020, and that the statute *154 must prevail over the ordinance. The statute is as follows:
Plaintiff reasons that the statute is not only a prohibition against drivers of motor vehicles meeting and passing school buses or passing school buses from the rear while the bus is stopped to receive or discharge passengers, but that it is also an authorization for school children to pass across the highway while the bus is stopped.
The difficulty with plaintiff's position is that, even if his assertions of law are correct, they are not applicable to the facts in issue. The above statute refers only to school children who are crossing a street or highway for the purpose of either boarding the bus or leaving the bus to attend school or reach their homes. In the present case, Gerald Burke was doing neither. Keeping in mind that before the accident Gerald was on the west side of the street where the buses were loading, his testimony on direct examination is as follows:
3. Having no purpose of his own to perform within the purview of the act, Gerald's action in crossing Tenth avenue was that of any other person in Cottage Grove wishing to cross the street. Whenever a person would claim a right arising from a statutory enactment, he must bring himself within the purview of the act. Nichols v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 196 Or 488, 250 P2d 379.
The judgment is affirmed.