Court Opinion

ID: 9530361
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:59:17.904427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:05.351731
License: Public Domain

*132DENECKE, C. J.,
specially concurring.
I am in accord with the decision in this case. I specially concur to state that in my opinion the form of one of the requested instructions is faulty and, therefore, the failure of the trial court to give that particular instruction would not be reversible error. Woosley v. Dunning, 268 Or 233, 255, 520 P2d 340 (1974); Gintner v. Handy, 244 Or 449, 451, 419 P2d 21 (1966).
Requested instruction V stated:
"A party who stores goods for the benefit of another or for their mutual benefit is a bailee. A bailee is not an insurer of the goods stored and is only liable if you believe from the evidence and these instructions that the bailee’s failure to return the goods was a result of the bailee’s negligence or lack of ordinary care.”
The requested instruction is faulty in form because it unnecessarily was couched in technical legal terms.
There is no necessity to define or use legal words or terms in instructing a jury. The practice of instructing in legal terms is extremely confusing to jurors. In the present case it was unnecessary to define "bailee” or distinguish a "bailee” from an "insurer.”
The trial court’s instructions to the jury are the weakest link in the jury system. This weakness is compounded when the lawyers request instructions in "legalese” and the trial courts give instructions in the same. I commend, Woleslagel, The "Kiss”Principle of Jury Communication, 14 Washburn L J 252 (1957).