Donald Thom v. Aubrey Lubrie Poss

Aimed at the control of traffic within its borders, the state of Oregon has enacted a statute which reads in part:

On the morning of April 7, 1956, appellee was driving a truck in a westerly direction on Burnside Avenue, a street in Portland, Oregon, and appellant was at the same time driving his car in the same direction on said avenue. At the intersection of Burnside and Grand Avenues, a collision occurred between the truck driven by appellee and the car driven by appellant. Suit was instituted by appellant against appellee charging negligence on the part of appellee in that he violated the provisions of the above quoted Oregon law by approaching the intersection of Burnside and Grand Avenues from the middle lane of a three lane Burnside Avenue and then making a right turn into Grand Avenue from said middle lane. A jury trial was had and a verdict rendered in favor of appellee. The sole specification of error relied on by appellant is that the court misdirected and misled the jury by giving the following instruction. It quoted the section of Oregon law heretofore set out in this opinion and then continued :

The statute in question is explicit in its requirement that two things…

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. The majority opinion relies for the reversal of the case upon an explanatory statement of the Court in its instructions after the Court had correctly quoted the Oregon law.

I agree that the section of the Oregon law in question (set forth in the majority opinion) has two commands for a driver of a vehicle “intending to turn at an intersection”: (1) to approach for a right turn in the lane nearest to the right hand side of the highway; and (2) to make the right turn as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the highway.

However, I do not agree with the majority opinion which in two places states that the Court’s instructions ignored the first command of the section m question, and concluded with the statement that appellant’s whole case was founded on the first portion of the section. The section was read to the jury in its entirety, including both its first and second command. Admittedly, the Court placed some emphasis on the second portion of the section in explaining the word “practicable,” but at no time did he say that a violation of the first part of the section would not be negligence. To the contrary, in another…

278 F.2d 811 Donald THOM, Appellant, v. Aubrey Lubrie POSS, Appellee. No. 16567. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. April 19, 1960. Peterson & Lent, Berkeley Lent, Gerald H. Robinson, Portland, Or., for appellant. Koerner, Young, McColloch & Dezendorf, Wayne Hilliard, George L. Wagner, Portland, Or., for appellee. Before ORR, HAMLIN and MERRILL, Circuit Judges. ORR, Circuit Judge. 1 Aimed at the control of traffic within its borders, the state of Oregon has enacted a statute which reads in part: 2 "Turns at intersections. (1) The driver of a vehicle intending to turn at an intersection shall observe the following rules: 3 "(a) The approach for a right turn shall be made in the lane for traffic nearest to the right-hand side of the highway and the right turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the highway." O.R.S. 483.316. 4 On the morning of April 7, 1956, appellee was driving a truck in a westerly direction on Burnside Avenue, a street in Portland, Oregon, and appellant was at the same time driving his car in the same direction on said avenue. At the intersection of Burnside and Grand Avenues, a collision occurred between the…