Case Name: SCHULZE, Respondent, v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN INC., Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1979-12-03
Citations: 43 Or. App. 485
Docket Number: No. 47838, CA 13368
Parties: SCHULZE, Respondent, v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN INC., Appellant.
Judges: Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Thornton and zer, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 43
Pages: 485–487

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted November 26,
affirmed December 3, 1979,
reconsideration denied February 14,
petition for review denied March 18, 1980 (288 Or 701)
SCHULZE, Respondent, v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN INC., Appellant.
(No. 47838, CA 13368)
603 P2d 780
Roger Hennagin, Portland, argued the cause for pellant. With him on the briefs was Delbert W. hnson, Portland.
Burl L. Green, Portland, argued the cause for ppondent. With him on the briefs was Green & Jiswold, Portland.
Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Thornton and zer, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
The only issue which warrants discussion concerns i instruction requested by defendant, but not given, uring oral argument defendant acknowledged that ie second sentence of the two-sentence instruction as ambiguous, if not misleading, and in any event ould have required modification prior to its being ¡ad to the jury. Defendant argues that it was never-eless reversible error for the trial court not to give ie first sentence. We know of no Oregon law that says at it is the duty of a trial judge to dissect a requested struction and give it after discarding defective parts.
Affirmed.