Legal Opinion

Rigsby v. Burlington Northern Inc.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided June 2, 1980No. A7711-15917, CA 14412PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtJoseph, P.J.

Appealing from a judgment rendered for defendant railroad company in a personal injury action, plaintiff assigns as error the court’s giving the following instruction to the jury:

"It follows, therefore, that there is a duty to make reasonable inspections of the cars to the end that defects therein may be ascertained and to warn or to repair the defect thus found. There is no duty, however, on the part of the railroad in any event to warn of a defect which is open, visible and obvious, and the duty to warn or repair does not come into play because the user can be expected to see such defects…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Wilk v. GeorgesOregon Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Tow v. K-Mart Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1979

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. State v. NewtonOregon Supreme Court · 1981

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

Powered by the Exa API