Shared by: aiowmnyv
ab04dc47-74af-4d2e-8c69-12af583bc7f5.doc 476 Taylor v. Olsen, Supreme Court of Oregon, 1978 Did the trial court err in its direct verdict? Issue Is ∆ required to inspect all trees that are by the roadside to prevent risks of unreasonable harm? Reasoning Should be a jury question as to whether the ∆ had taken reasonable care to inform himself of the condition of the tree IF there was sufficient evidence that the inspection would have disclosed its hazardous condition. Rule It is a question for the jury to decide whether defendant had taken reasonable care to inform himself of the condition of the tree, provided there was evidence that an inspection would have disclosed its hazardous condition Facts (1) A tree, on ∆’s lot, which was decayed at the center on the inside with very minor visible signs, When many trees on land, becomes too onerous to require landowner to check every tree. 1. 2. ∆ was not on notice of decay and Boring and chopping is not a normal or expected way for one to examine a standing tree in the absence of external indications. (2) broke at the point of decay and fell on the adjacent road (3) ∏ sustained injuries when while driving by on a the dark and windy evening hit the tree Therefore, directed verdict is not an error. (4) Only boring or chopping into the trunk could’ve allowed the discovery of the decay. Held Procedure P argues D argues Affirmed ∏ sued for damages. Direct verdict for ∆. ∏ appeals.