Ardueser v. Rahier

• Jurisdiction: Oregon
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Before O'CONNELL; BRYSON
• Citation: Ardueser v. Rahier, 495 P.2d 724, 261 Or. 521 (Or. 1972)
• Decision Date: 04 April 1972
• Parties: Susanne ARDUESER, Appellant, v. Martin D. RAHIER, Respondent.

Page 724

495 P.2d 724

261 Or. 521

Susanne ARDUESER, Appellant, v. Martin D. RAHIER, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Oregon.

Argued and Submitted March 2, 1972.

Decided April 4, 1972.

John J. Haugh, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were O'Connell, Goyak, Haugh & Loew, Portland.

Ridgway K. Foley, Jr., Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Souther, Spaulding, Kinsey Williamson & Schwabe, and James B. O'Hanlon, Portland.

Before O'CONNELL, C.J., and McALLISTER, DENECKE, HOLMAN and BRYSON, JJ.

BRYSON, Justice.

Plaintiff brought this action for damages for personal injuries sustained in a minor automobile accident in Washington county. The facts of the accident are not germane to the questions raised on appeal. The jury returned a verdict for defendant and plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff, in her brief, states, 'Assignments of Error 1 through 4 are all addressed to the Circuit Court's refusal to sustain plaintiff's objection to testimony regarding a subsequent accidental injury, an action arising therefrom, and the settlement of the same,' and has combined her argument in support of all assignments of error because 'each of these Assignments of Error are closely related, * * *.' We agree that the assignments of error are interrelated. They all refer to testimony received, over objection, pertaining to injuries received by the plaintiff in a fall from a horse at a time subsequent to the injuries she received in the automobile accident with which we are here concerned.

This automobile accident occurred on September 27, 1968; the complaint was filed May 18, 1970, and alleged at the time of trial:

'That as a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the defendant, plaintiff was caused to be catapulted in and about the interior of her automobile, resulting in severe tearing, twisting and wrenching of the muscles, tendons, ligaments, nerves, and soft tissues Of her neck, headaches, nausea and a severe shock to her entire nervous system, and that said injuries caused great mental and physical pain and suffering and emotional upset; said injuries have necessitated medical treatment, including therapy, medicines, X-rays, and that all said injuries will, In the future, continue to cause plaintiff great mental and physical pain and suffering, all to her damage in the sum of $10,000.00.'

(Subsequently amended by the court, after the parties rested, to conform to the evidence); sometime in mid-1970 (the record does not indicate the exact date) the plaintiff was thrown from her horse and broke her back. This case involving the automobile accident came on for trial on March 17, 1971.

The plaintiff testified:

'Q Okay. Then in 1970 you were thrown from the horse and broke your back?

'A Yes.

'Q And by that time this injury from the auto accident had cleared up, or had it not, or _ _?

'A Well, I had inflamed it or aggravated it by working a lot of overtime.

'Q When did this break take place?

'* * *.

'Q Of what year?

'A Of '70.

'Q Okay. Were you still feeling effects from the accident that far after the accident?

'A I was in--he put me back in physical therapy.'

The plaintiff also testified that her headaches were getting worse and that her neck and shoulders still hurt as a result of the automobile accident.

On cross-examination the plaintiff testified:

'Q Do you contend that you received any injury to your neck area in your horse accident?

'A No. None at all.'

At this point plaintiff's counsel objected to this line of testimony on the ground that what injuries plaintiff incurred as a result of being thrown from the horse were not relevant. Following a colloquy between plaintiff's counsel and the court, the following occurred:

'MR. O'HANLON (To the Clerk): Would you mark this Complaint?

'Q Is this a complaint entitled Susanne Ardueser against the Portland Riding Academy?

'MR. MORGAN: Your Honor, I am going to have to object to introducing a complaint in another case that didn't pre-date this accident. We claimed no injury in this accident.'

Defense counsel then asked the plaintiff:

'Q Does this bear your signature?

'A Yes.

'Q Does this read correctly--and I will read it--'That as a direct and proximate result of the negligence of defendants, and each of them, the plaintiff suffered severe personal injuries as follows: compression fracture of the third lumbar vertebrae, strains and sprains of the lumbar, dorsal and cervical areas of the back _ _', does it say that?

'A Yes.

'Q Do you know what area is your cervical area?

'A Neck.'

From the above, it is obvious that the plaintiff claimed injury to her neck as a result of the automobile accident and from being thrown from the horse. We find that the court committed no error in allowing the defendant to inquire of the plaintiff during cross-examination if she had suffered injuries to her neck or cervical areas as a result of both accidents. At the time of trial plaintiff was still contending that she had suffered injuries to her neck and severe shock to her entire nervous system and that such injuries would, In the future, continue to cause plaintiff great mental and physical pain and suffering. The jury was entitled to know that prior to the time of trial the plaintiff had verified a complaint arising out of another accident in which she also contended that she had received injuries in the cervical area of the...