Goff v. Elde

• Court: Oregon Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: [132 Or. 692] COSHOW, C.J. (after stating the facts as above).
• Citation: Goff v. Elde, 132 Or. 689, 288 P. 212 (Or. 1930)
• Decision Date: 20 May 1930
• Parties: GOFF v. ELDE ET AL.

288 P. 212

132 Or. 689

GOFF v. ELDE ET AL.

Supreme Court of Oregon

May 20, 1930

In Banc.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; Walter H. Evans, Judge.

Action by J. H. Goff against Iver Elde and others. Judgment for plaintiff against defendants Iver Elde and another, and they appeal.

Affirmed.

This is an action for personal injuries and damages to an automobile. Judgment was entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against defendants Iver Elde and William Oswalt. Defendants assign four errors. The first alleged error is the admission over defendants' objection of a question propounded to Robert Bobell, a witness called by plaintiff. The question and answer was: "Q. Now, I will ask you this question When you are in in the center of Fourteenth Street, and at a point fifty feet in the center or approximately in the center of Fourteenth Street, and at a point fifty feet North of the curb line of the intersection of Fourteenth and Jefferson Streets, how far can you see to your right an automobile approaching and coming from the West and going East on Jefferson Street as it approaches this intersection? A Forty-two feet."

The second assignment of error is based on the ruling of the court permitting plaintiff to amend his complaint by adding an allegation reading as follows: "In approaching within fifty feet and in traversing the said intersection of said highways at said Fourteenth and Jefferson Streets at a speed in excess of fifteen miles per hour when the driver of the said Packard car, to-wit, William Oswalt's vision was obstructed during the last fifty feet of his approach to such intersection so that he did not have a clear and uninterrupted view of such intersection and of the traffic upon all of the highways entering such intersection for a distance of two hundred feet from such intersection."

The third assignment of error is based on the following instruction given by the court: "The law further provides that no car shall be operated at a speed in excess of fifteen miles an hour when approaching within fifty feet and in traversing an intersection of highways when the driver's view is obstructed. A driver's view shall be deemed to be obstructed when at any time during the last fifty feet of his approach to such intersection he does not have a clear and uninterrupted view of such intersection and of the traffic upon all of the highways entering such intersection for a distance of two hundred feet from such intersection."

Defendants submit said assignments of error No. 1, 2, and 3 under one argument, all based on the theory that the court erred in permitting said amendment.

The fourth assignment of error is the court's refusal to give the following instruction requested by defendants: "I instruct you that in the event you find a verdict in favor of the plaintiff you cannot allow him in excess of the sum of $______, the amount of the repair bill introduced in evidence on account of damage to his automobile."

The collision occurred at the intersection of Fourteenth and Jefferson streets in the city of Portland. Fourteenth street extends northerly and southerly and Jefferson street extends easterly and westerly; both being established thoroughfares in the city of Portland. Plaintiff stated two causes of action in his complaint: First, is his claim for injuries to his person: and, second, damages done to his automobile. In addition to general denials, defendants charge plaintiff with...