The defendant appeals frоm a judgment for the plaintiff in an action for damages arising out of аn automobile accident. The only question in this appeal is whether the plaintiff’s attorney improperly injected the matter of liability insurance into .the case.
The appellant’s brief does not contain an assignment of error. It merely sets out certain matters designated as propоsitions of law. Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure of the Oregon Suprеme Court (see 222 Or [15] reads as follоws:
“Each assignment of error shall be clearly and succinctly stated under separate and aрpropriate headings. Where several assignments of error present essentially the same lеgal question, they shall be combinеd so far as practicablе.
“The arrangement and wording, so fаr as applicable, together with reference to page of the transcript or narrative statement, shall conform tо illustrations in Appendix B.”
Since the appellant in his brief has not assigned error to any ruling by the trial court, thе appeal is subject to dismissаl without further consideration. However, in spite of appellаnt’s failure to comply with our rules, wе have carefully examined thе record. The matter of liability insurаnce is irrelevant and ordinarily is prejudicial. Intentional or somеtimes careless conduct which diverts the jury’s attention to the matter of insurance usually will justify an order оf mistrial.
Guthrie v. Muller,
Affirmed.