Van Gordon by Van Gordon v. Portland General Elec. Co.
Decision Date | 25 October 1983 |
Docket Number | No. A7902-00508,A7902-00508 |
Citation | 295 Or. 811,670 P.2d 1026 |
Parties | Brock A. VAN GORDON, by Elizabeth Ann VAN GORDON, his guardian ad litem, Petitioner on review, v. PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, a corporation, Respondent on review. PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v. Kino BARKER and Helene Barker, Respondents. ; CA 19901; SC 29945. . * |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Mark L. Cushing and Barbee B. Lyon, of Tonkon, Torp, Galen, Marmaduke & Booth, Portland, for the petition.
John R. Faust, Jr., of Schwabe, Williamson, Wyatt, Moore & Roberts, and James K. Buell, of Buell, Black & Dupuy, Portland, contra.
The facts in this case are set out in our opinion, Van Gordon v. PGE Co., 294 Or. 761, 662 P.2d 714 (1983).
Plaintiff petitions this court to accept review, to reverse the Court of Appeals, and to affirm the judgment in favor of the plaintiff. We decline review of all issues raised with the exception of requiring the Court of Appeals to apply the correct standard for evaluating evidential error.
OEC 103 provides:
The commentary to this rule reads:
The Oregon Evidence Code comes from Oregon Laws 1981, chapter 892, and section 101 thereof provides:
(Emphasis added.)
The Court of Appeals simply ignored the statutory precept that the case of Elam v. Soares, 282 Or. 93, 577 P.2d 1336 (1978), was overruled.
By reference to the concurring and dissenting opinion in the previous decision in this case by the Court of Appeals, the majority opinion in the second review by the Court of Appeals concluded that the asserted error was not harmless (slip op 2). In adopting the earlier concurring and dissenting opinion, the court erred in concluding that error is presumed to be prejudicial. The court stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Osborne v. International Harvester Co.
...of OEC 103(1), because its application is feasible and works no injustice. See Or.Laws 1981, ch. 892, § 101; Van Gordon v. PGE Co., 295 Or. 811, 813, 670 P.2d 1026 (1983).3 IHC's counsel read the following from Evanson's report:"I am now satisfied that the sequence of failure which I develo......
-
Honeywell v. Sterling Furniture Co.
...Carr, 302 Or. 20, 27, 725 P.2d 1287 (1986); State v. Miller, 300 Or. 203, 220, 709 P.2d 225 (1985), or harmless, Van Gordon v. PGE Co., 295 Or. 811, 813, 670 P.2d 1026 (1983); Powers v. Officer Cheeley, supra, 307 Or. at 597 n 13, 771 P.2d 622. See also Kirkpatrick, Oregon Evidence 16-17 (2......
-
Hackett v. Alco Standard Corp.
...opinion of Van Hoomissen, J); rev'd and remanded 294 Or. 761, 662 P.2d 714; on remand, 64 Or.App. 135, 667 P.2d 532; remanded 295 Or. 811, 670 P.2d 1026 (1983); on remand, 67 Or.App. 290, 677 P.2d 739, rev. allowed 297 Or. 339 The second aspect of defendant's harmless error argument is more......
-
York v. Bailey
...to Elam, effectively overruling it by providing that "evidential error is not presumed to be prejudicial." See Van Gordon v. PGE Co., 295 Or. 811, 813, 670 P.2d 1026 (1983). The effect of that enactment was to eliminate any presumption of prejudice for evidentiary error without also creatin......