Court Opinion

ID: 9611688
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:59:24.718899+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:16.925141
License: Public Domain

DENECKE, J.,
specially concurring.
I construe the majority opinion concerning the first assignment of error to hold that there is no persuasive evidence that plaintiff’s counsel intentionally injected insurance into the case and, therefore, a mistrial is not mandatory; that it is not necessary to infer from the witness’s statement that the defendant was insured and his insurance company “hounded” the plaintiff; therefore, there was a basis for the trial court’s apparent finding that the defendant was not prejudiced by the testimony. This reasoning I find in accord with Blake v. Webster Orchards, 249 Or 348, 437 P2d 757 (1968).
Howell, J., joins in this specially concurring opinion.