Ehler v. Portland Gas & Coke Co.
| Decision Date | 06 July 1960 |
| Citation | 353 P.2d 864,223 Or. 28 |
| Parties | John B. EHLER and Jessie Ehler, Appellants, v. PORTLAND GAS & COKE COMPANY, a corporation, Respondent. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Smith, Gray, Hill & Rodgers, Portland, for the petition.
Before McALLISTER, C. J., and WARNER, SLOAN, O'CONNELL and MILLARD, JJ.
In defendant's petition for rehearing our attention is directed to statements contained in our former opinion wherein it was inadvertently stated that the refrigerator was located in the northwest corner of the kitchen and that gas was escaping in an area 3 or 4 feet in circumference around a riser. In fact, the refrigerator was located in the northeast corner of the kitchen and gas was escaping in an area 3 or 4 inches in circumference about the riser, and, hence, our former opinion is corrected to that extent. Since we had the facts in mind as they actually existed, this does not in any way change our opinion.
In our opinion we also stated that proof that the pipe was installed by defendant and that gas was leaking therefrom would be sufficient to justify the trial court in submitting the issue of defective installation. We did not mean to indicate that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was thereby involved. It was merely a circumstance to be considered by the jury in considering whether the pipe was defectively installed.
Some complaint is made that in the opinion it was stated that defendant was notified several times to shut off the gas. Mrs. Ehler testified that she so notified the company. While Mr. Ehler did not directly testify that he ordered the gas turned off, he stated that when he discovered the condition he called the defendant not only once but several times 'not less than once a month' and 'for a period of about a year and a half,' and that nothing was done.
We see no reason to depart from our former opinion, and the petition for rehearing is denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kaufman v. Fisher
...Eitel v. Times, Inc., 221 Or. 585, 352 P.2d 485 (1960). Cf., Ehler et ux. v. Portland Gas & Cake Co., 223 Or. 28, 352 P.2d 1102, 353 P.2d 864 (1960). See, 2 Harper & James, Law of Torts, § 19.4, pp. 1068-1069 (1956); James, Jury Control Devices, 47 Va.L.Rev. 218.4 The doctrine has been expl......
-
Clubb v. Hanson
...ux v. Solbeck et ux, 191 Or. 454, 466, 230 P.2d 195 (1951), and Ehler et ux v. Portland Gas & Coke Co., 223 Or. 28, 38, 352 P.2d 1102, 353 P.2d 864 (1960). We hold that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to support such a finding by the jury in this case. Cf. Eitel v. Times, Inc.,......
-
Hendrix v. McKee
...of such facts as a reasonably diligent inquiry would reveal. Ehler et ux. v. Portland Gas & Coke Co., 223 Or. 28, 46, 352 P.2d 1102, 353 P.2d 864 (1960). Plaintiff denied subjective knowledge of the defendant's illegal gambling activities. However, there were abundant facts in evidence whic......
-
Howard v. Sloan
...a reasonable inference, as a matter of law. As stated in Ehler et ux. v. Portland Gas & Coke Co., 223 Or. 28, 38--39, 352 P.2d 1102, 353 P.2d 864 (1960): 'Where one relies upon circumstantial evidence from which reasonable deductions may be drawn to establish a fact by inference, the infere......