Hall v. Corning
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtDenecke, J.
The plaintiff landowners received a jury verdict in their action for trespass. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for a new trial. Plaintiffs appeal. *35The issue is whether the defendants are vicariously liable for the acts of a bulldozer operator.
The motion for a new trial was based upon the ground that there was insufficient evidence to send the case to the jury.① For this reason the evidence will be considered in its form most favorable to plaintiffs.
When a motion for a new trial is granted upon the ground that there is no evidence upon which to submit the case to the jury, the trial…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Mature v. AngeloSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
- Wemett v. MountOregon Supreme Court · 1930
- Williams v. Clemen's Forest Products, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1950
- Penrose v. Mitchell Bros. Crane Division, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1967
- Lundquist v. IrvineOregon Supreme Court · 1966
3Cited by2 opinions
- Eldridge v. Allstate Insurance Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1970
- Johnson v. FieldOregon Supreme Court · 1969