Opinion ID: 1162130
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The summary of Hub's repair records.

Text: The trial court also did not err in sustaining plaintiff's objection to a summary of Hub's records purporting to show the time devoted by its employees to the repair of the skidder. In order for a summary of accounting records to be admissible, all of the original records which set forth the facts and figures which are the basis for such a summary must be produced in court for inspection by the opposing party for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of the summary. See ORS 41.640(1)(e); McCormick on Evidence 2d 564, § 233 (1972). That requirement was not satisfied by defendant in that the only records which showed the time devoted in any particular day by particular employees to work on this equipment were not produced, but only the general time records, which did not set forth this information. The only remaining ruling on evidence assigned as error  the sustaining of an objection to a question inquiring whether plaintiff had other uses for the skidder  has no merit. Under plaintiff's theory of the case he was entitled to recover either rent or the rental value of the equipment during the period that defendant had its possession, regardless of whether plaintiff then had any other use for it. While that fact may have had some relevance on the question of rental value, we do not believe that its probative value was sufficient so as to result in prejudicial error.