Opinion ID: 1388158
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Operation of store difficulties with driveway, water and septic tank hook-ups.

Text: Plaintiffs began operation of the store on November 15, 1966. They offered evidence to show that the business grew steadily, as shown by its monthly gross sales, until August 1968, after which the business steadily declined. In 1968 a lot adjacent to the store was sold and it was then discovered that a portion of the driveway to the store passed over this lot. In August 1968 the purchaser of that lot closed off the driveway for a week. Defendant then put in a new driveway to the store, but apparently it was steep and narrow and was not surfaced with either cinders or gravel. There was also evidence that this new driveway had boulders and stumps in it and became rutted. As a result, according to plaintiffs' testimony, delivery trucks couldn't get up, and there was no place for them to park below. It also appears that customers' cars had considerable difficulty with the new driveway during the winter of 1968-69 beginning with rain in August and September, which caused the new driveway to become so slick and muddy as to become impassable. Meanwhile, according to further testimony offered by the plaintiffs, no water or sewer hook-up had been made and the well from which plaintiffs hauled their water had become polluted by a septic tank. In October 1968 the health authorities notified plaintiffs that they must either close the store or secure a water supply of a safe and sanitary quality. According to testimony offered by the plaintiffs, defendant ignored further complaints and put a lock on the pumphouse door in February 1969 after which plaintiffs closed down the store and moved out at the end of that month. Plaintiff Fitzgerald testified that: A. Well, the water well had been completely shut up, nobody could get in or out and our business had dropped off so until it wasn't paying us to keep open, to even keep a heater running to keep the produce from freezing and I saw no future at that rate keeping it open. Much of the testimony offered by plaintiffs was denied by defendant. Because of the verdict by the jury in favor of the plaintiffs, however, the testimony offered by them must be accepted as true for the purposes of this appeal. Krause v. Eugene Dodge, Inc., 265 Or. 486, 490, 509 P.2d 1199 (1973). Defendant's motions for a nonsuit and directed verdict were properly denied.