Legal Opinion

Ashland v. Pacific Power & Light Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided September 23, 1964Published

1Per curiam

The petition for rehearing is denied. The only part of the petition which requires comment is directed to our holding that the following instruction to which the plaintiff duly excepted was not erroneous:

“I instruct you that a person does not comply *252with, the duty to keep a reasonable lookout by simply looking and not seeing that which is plainly visible and which would have been seen by a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances. I therfore [sic] instruct you that if at the time of the accident the stop sign would have been timely seen by a reasonably prudent person…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Exner v. Sherman Power Const. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931
  2. Dicaprio v. . N.Y.C.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1921
  3. Akers v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
  4. Mansfield v. Wagner Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1922
  5. Lovins v. JACKSONOregon Supreme Court · 1963

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

Powered by the Exa API