Crismon v. Parks
238 Or. App. 312
| Or. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Plaintiff sustained injuries in a rear-end automobile collision with defendant.
- Medical evidence showed a pars defect and spondylolisthesis at L5-S1, asymptomatic prior to the accident.
- Experts testified the accident likely aggravated plaintiff's preexisting condition, causing pain and limitations.
- Plaintiff sought UCJI 70.06 (Damages—A Previous Infirm Condition) to allow full damages despite preexisting condition.
- Trial court refused to give 70.06 and offered 70.07 or declined alternatives; plaintiff declined 70.07.
- Jury returned a verdict for defendant; plaintiff appealed, arguing error requiring reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UCJI 70.06 should have been given | Evidence supported a previous infirm condition instruction. | Instruction not supported by evidence; explain only aggravation. | Reversed; error in failing to give 70.06. |
| Whether aggravation instruction could substitute for the previous infirm condition | Aggravation instruction inadequate for plaintiff's theory. | Aggravation instruction supported by evidence and theory. | Aggravation instruction not a valid substitute. |
| Whether failure to give 70.06 was prejudicial | Without 70.06, jury could misapply damages for preexisting condition. | Any error was invited or not prejudicial due to other instructions. | Prejudicial error; reversal required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winn v. Fry, 77 Or.App. 690 (Or. App. 1986) (preexisting condition evidence can support previous infirm condition instruction)
- Fuller v. Merten, 173 Or.App. 592 (Or. App. 2001) (recovery notwithstanding preexisting infirmity)
- Hernandez v. Barbo Machinery Co., 327 Or. 99 (Or. 1998) (proper standard for jury instruction sufficiency and relevancy)
- Carter v. Mote, 285 Or. 275 (Or. 1979) (evidence standard: instruction supported by competent evidence)
- Redden v. Discount Fabrics, 289 Or. 375 (Or. 1980) (evidence sufficient for establishing willful conduct or related doctrines)
- Rogers v. Meridian Park Hospital, 307 Or. 612 (Or. 1989) (instructions that mislead or confuse are grounds for reversal)