Padel v. Narits

• Decision Date: 07 September 1967
• Citation: 430 P.2d 1002,247 Or. 566
• Parties: Inge PADEL, Appellant, v. Karl NARITS, Respondent.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Page 1002

430 P.2d 1002

247 Or. 566

Inge PADEL, Appellant, v. Karl NARITS, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Oregon, Department 2.

Argued and Submitted July 14, 1967.

Decided Sept. 7, 1967.

Ernest W. Kissling, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Rask, Hefferin & Bowerman, Portland.

Frederic P. Roehr, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Vergeer, Samuels, Cavanaugh & Roehr, Portland.

Before PERRY, C.J., and SLOAN, GOODWIN, DENECKE, and LUSK, JJ.

LUSK, Justice.

Plaintiff has appealed from a judgment for defendant based on a jury verdict in a personal injury action growing out of collision between automobiles in a street intersection in Portland.

The accident occurred in the intersection of East Burnside Street (hereinafter Burnside) and Southeast 32d Avenue (hereinafter 32d) in the City of Portland. Burnside at the time of the accident was a four-lane highway west of 32d. To the east of 32d it had but two lanes. Traffic at the intersection was controlled by a traffic light. Plaintiff was riding in a car driven by her friend John Konies east on Burnside. As he neared 32d he was in the outer of the two eastbound lanes of traffic. As he entered the intersection on a green light he passed three cars in the inside lane which had been waiting for the light to change and the lead car of which made a left-hand turn into 32d. At about the same time the defendant, who was driving west on Burnside and had stopped at 32d because of the red light, made a left-hand turn when the light changed to green to proceed south on 32d, but was struck by the Konies car before he could pass through the intersection.

Plaintiff's brief contains two assignments of error directed to the following instruction:

'The driver of a vehicle shall not overtake and pass any other vehicle proceeding in the same direction at any intersection of highways unless such movement can be made in safety.'

Counsel for plaintiff took the following exception to this instruction:

'The plaintiff would except to the giving of the instruction on passing at intersections.'

In support of this exception counsel for plaintiff urge two grounds: first, that ORS 483.308, which prohibits a driver of a motor vehicle from overtaking and passing any other motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction at any intersection of highways unless such movement can be made in safety, is not applicable to multiple lane highways; and second, that the instruction authorized the jury to impute to plaintiff the negligence of the driver of the car in which she was riding and contradicted other instructions in which the court gave the jury the correct rule on this subject.

The exception taken by the plaintiff did not call the trial court's attention to either of these contentions and was too general to raise any question for consideration by this court. It is the established rule that a party in excepting to an instruction 'must make known to the trial judge the specific objection which he wishes to present upon appeal': Galer v. Weyerhaeuser Timber Co. et al., 218 Or. 152, 175, 344 P.2d 544, 554. See, also, State v. Commedore, 237 Or. 348, 354, 391 P.2d 605; Hamilton v. Union Oil Company et al, 216 Or. 354, 367--368, 339 P.2d 440; State v. Kader, 201 Or. 300, 336, 270 P.2d 160; Wilson v. State Ind....