Legal Opinion · Dissent

Dimick v. Linnell

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided June 3, 1965Published

1DissentSloan, J.

Plaintiff testified that he was walking on the shoulder of the highway, one or two feet from the edge of the pavement. The shoulder was about three feet wide. Defendant testified that plaintiff was walking in the middle of the north bound lane of traffic. If the jury had seen fit to believe plaintiff’s testimony it would follow that the statute relied on by the majority would have had little significance. The jury could have inferred .that defendant may have suddenly swerved onto the shoulder.

However, the basic fault of the majority is that it would bar every pedestrian from recovery…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Zahara v. BrandliOregon Supreme Court · 1939

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API