Leesi v. Yamhill County
| Decision Date | 12 May 1931 |
| Citation | 298 P. 911,136 Or. 295 |
| Parties | LEESI v. YAMHILL COUNTY. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Washington County; George R. Bagley Judge.
Action by Otto Leesi against Yamhill County. Verdict for plaintiff and, from an order setting aside the verdict and granting new trial, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed and cause remanded.
William P. Lord, of Portland (Lord & Moulton, of Portland, on the brief), for appellant.
E. B. Tongue, of Hillsboro, and Earl A. Nott, of McMinnville, for respondent.
This action is brought by plaintiff against Yamhill county to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of a defective and dangerous condition of a bridge on a county road in said county.
Plaintiff in his complaint alleges the organization of the county and that defendant has kept and maintained the said bridge in a defective and dangerous condition, and kept the same open for traffic, and then proceeds: "Heretofore on the Twentieth day of October, 1928, said defendant carelessly and negligently permitted certain holes and plank ends in said bridge to obstruct the same and render the same unsafe for traffic, and carelessly and negligently failed and neglected to construct a strong and efficient railing on said bridge and carelessly and negligently maintained on and along said bridge a certain weak, insufficient, old and decayed railing, and said defendant then and there well knew the dangerous and defective condition of said bridge, and well knew that by reason of said holes and plank ends, and the obstruction formed thereby, motor vehicles crossing the same were apt to be deflected from their course, and thrown against said railing, and that the said railing was defective and insufficient, and that such motor vehicles were apt to be, by said defective conditions, thrown from said bridge, and persons and property injured thereby, but said defendant notwithstanding said knowledge, carelessly and negligently maintained said bridge and railing in said defective condition, and carelessly and negligently failed to repair the same, erect or post any warning of the defective and dangerous condition thereof, and thereupon, while plaintiff was in a lawful and proper manner driving across said bridge in an automobile, owned and operated by him, the said automobile struck said plank ends and holes, and was deflected from its course against said railing, and by reason of said defective condition of said railing, and of said obstructions and plank ends, was thrown off said bridge, and fell a distance of about twenty feet, and thereby plaintiff was bruised and injured about his body and limbs, * * * to his damage in the sum of $1,750."
He then alleged presentation of his claim to Yamhill county, and that the claim was disallowed.
For a second cause of action he alleges the said set of facts, and that his automobile was damaged in the sum of $250.
To this complaint the defendant filed an answer admitting the organization of the county, the presentation of the claim and its disallowance, and that defendant kept and maintained the bridge referred to, and denied all the acts of negligence and the injury alleged in the complaint, and for a further and separate answer alleged: "* * * That said road at the west end of said bridge has a double turn in it and runs considerably down grade in approaching the said bridge from the west; and that plaintiff lives in the vicinity of said road and bridge and travels the same practically every day, and is thoroughly familiar with said road and bridge and the conditions thereof; that on or about the Twentieth day of October, 1928, plaintiff carelessly, recklessly and negligently drove and operated an automobile in an easterly direction down said road and grade and around said turn and onto said bridge at a high rate of speed recklessly and negligently failing to have said automobile under control, and while carelessly and negligently permitting the steering gear of said automobile to be and maintained the same in a stiff and improper condition, which made it impossible to properly and easily steer said automobile in that the steering gear would bind and would not respond to the touch of the driver, and while so negligently and carelessly driving said automobile in said improper and unsafe condition, and negligently failing to have said automobile under control, plaintiff did carelessly and negligently drive said automobile onto the left side of said bridge at the west end thereof, and did then and there carelessly and negligently suddenly jerk said automobile back to the extreme right, and cause it to plunge into the railing on the right end side of the south end of said bridge and fall to the ground below;" that this was the same accident referred to in plaintiff's complaint, and whatever damages he suffered was by reason of the carelessness therein set out. The same set of facts were set up in answer to the plaintiff's second cause of action.
Plaintiff thereafter filed his reply, denying each and every...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fulton Ins. Co. v. White Motor Corp.
...defective. Sometimes we have given permission to ask leave of the trial court to amend the pleading. See, e.g., Leesi v. Yamhill County, 136 Or. 295, 301, 298 P. 911 (1931). Duby v. Hicks, supra, 105 Or. at 36, 209 P. 156. But Booth v. Moody, supra, 30 Or. at 226, 46 P. 884. We are of the o......
-
Blue v. City of Union
...Russell v. Men of Devon, 2 T.R. 667, 100 E.R. 359; Templeton v. Linn County, 22 Or. 313 (29 P. 795, 15 L.R.A. 730); Leesi v. Yamhill County, 136 Or. 295, 299 (298 P. 911), and the cases there cited, and 6 McQuillin, Mun. Corp. (2d Ed.) 1018, § 2775. It is therefore easy to understand why th......
-
Bobillot v. Clackamas County
...discussed at some length by counsel for the respective parties, the court stated: "Our Supreme Court, in this case of Leesi v. Yamhill County [136 Or. 295, 298 P. 911.] * * * held that it was necessary to plead and to prove five distinct elements in a case of this kind. are interested here ......
-
Gerber v. Multnomah County
... ... This ... case was tried on June 16, 1932, and, about one month prior ... thereto, this court, in the case of Leesi v. [143 ... Or. 455] Yamhill County, 136 Or. 295, 298 P. 911, ... 913, in construing this statute, had held that there were ... ...