Shoup v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtHaselton, P. J.
Defendant Wal-Mart appeals from an adverse judgment in a personal injury action. Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erroneously submitted a deficient specification of negligence to the jury; and (2) because the jury rendered a general verdict, defendant is entitled to a new trial under the “we can’t tell” rule of Whinston v. Kaiser Foundation Hospital, 309 Or 350, 357, 788 P2d 428 (1990). Plaintiff responds that the challenged specification, as refined and proved at trial, is sufficient, and that in all events, defendant, in objecting to a special verdict form that plaintiffs…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Waterway Terminals Co. v. P. S. Lord Mechanical ContractorsOregon Supreme Court · 1965
- Woolston v. WellsOregon Supreme Court · 1984
- Whinston v. Kaiser Foundation HospitalOregon Supreme Court · 1990
- Waddill v. Anchor Hocking, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2000
- Anderson v. Oregon RailroadOregon Supreme Court · 1904
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Shoup v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2003
- Ault v. Del Var Properties, LLCCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2016