Legal Opinion

Bjorndal v. Weitman

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided May 8, 2008No. CC 031320; CA A131325; SC S054837PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBalmer, J.

In this personal injury action arising out of an automobile accident, we consider — and, having done so, reject— the use of the so-called “emergency instruction” in such cases. The trial court gave that jury instruction at defendant’s request and over plaintiffs objection, and the jury returned a verdict in defendant’s favor. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the evidence did not establish an “emergency” that would support giving the instruction. Plaintiff also argued that the emergency instruction is disfavored in Oregon and never should be given. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a brief per…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Stokes v. SaltonstallSupreme Court of the United States · 1839
  2. Caristo v. SanzoneNew York Court of Appeals · 2001
  3. Woolston v. WellsOregon Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Barnum v. WilliamsOregon Supreme Court · 1972
  5. Rogers v. Meridian Park HospitalOregon Supreme Court · 1989

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Bedor v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Colorado · 2013
  2. Cowan v. NordykeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
  3. Scheffel v. Oregon Beta Chapter of Phi Kappa Psi FraternityCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015
  4. Loper v. BrakelCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API