Title: Eid v. LARSEN ET UX.
Citation: 200 Or. 83, 264 P.2d 1051
Docket Number: N/A
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: December 16, 1953

Reversed December 16, 1953.
*84 John F. Conway, of Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.
James Arthur Powers, of Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents.
Before LATOURETTE, Chief Justice, and ROSSMAN, LUSK, BRAND, TOOZE and PERRY, Justices.
REVERSED.
LATOURETTE, C.J.
Plaintiff, Ellen G. Eid, brought action against defendants to recover damages for alleged personal injuries arising out of a collision between her husband's automobile in which she was a passenger and the automobile driven by defendant Nan E. Larsen and belonging to her husband Charles E. Larsen. The collision happened at the intersection of 82nd avenue and Halsey street in Portland on January 19, 1951, at about 5:30 p.m. At the time of the collision the two automobiles were approaching each other when, it is alleged, the Larsen automobile made a left turn across the path of Eid's oncoming automobile. The verdict was in favor of defendants. Plaintiff appeals.
Plaintiff's only assignment of error having merit was the giving of the following instruction:
Plaintiff excepted as follows:
Defendants, in their brief, admit:
It is argued that the giving of the challenged instruction was not reversible error because, first, the instructions taken as a whole were proper, and second, that the exception taken was insufficient to give the court an opportunity to correct the instruction.
1. The latter portion of the given instruction was not only erroneous but was prejudicial. It stated that plaintiff could not recover if her husband was negligent in driving the car. It is elementary that negligence of the driver of an automobile cannot be imputed to a passenger. It is true that the court, in another portion of its instructions, correctly instructed the jury that the *86 negligence of plaintiff's husband could not be charged to the plaintiff.
2, 3. The instruction to which exception was taken and the instruction last referred to were inconsistent. Generally, inconsistent instructions require a reversal. Barnes v. Davidson, 190 Or 508, 528, 226 P2d 289. Since the erroneous instruction went directly to the question of defendants' liability, the error cannot be disregarded. Fehely v. Senders, 170 Or 457, 480, 135 P2d 283.
4. Counsel clearly made the point of his exception when he said that the instruction was contrary to the law because "Ellen Eid is not chargeable with any negligence of Arlie, * * *"
Reversed.