Court Opinion

ID: 9551846
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:00:38.459186+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:50.666216
License: Public Domain

McALLISTER, J.,
dissenting.
The result of the decision in this case is, I think, a new rule to this effect: When an injury is admitted or obvious, the rule of Flansberg v. Paulson, 239 Or 610, 399 P2d 356 (1965) applies; but if the defendant denies that plaintiff was injured, and the evidence presents a jury question on that issue, the jury will be at liberty to compromise in violation of the court’s instructions by bringing in a verdict of nominal or no general damages together with all or part of the special damages. This new rule will further confuse a problem which is already almost insoluble. We should ad-
*544here to the rule in Flansberg v. Paulson, supra, and the earlier cases there cited.
I dissent.