Garber v. Martin

As stated by the majority, the trial judge granted defendant’s motion for new trial because he was of the opinion that defendants did not get a fair trial because of the “cumulative effect” of the four grounds urged as a basis for that motion “and particularly the injection of insurance into the case, even though involuntarily done.”①

The majority would, for the first time in Oregon, affirm the granting of a new trial in a personal injury ease upon the ground that the inadvertent *413mention of insurance by a witness, although in response to a proper question, is of itself a sufficient ground for…