Court of Appeals of Oregon January 8, 2003, CV98-04-401 and CCV 98-02-480; A107447 (Ryerse v. Haddock)

*681

SCHUMAN, J.

After the jury in this personal injury case returned a verdict in favor of Ryerse,

1

the Haddocks moved for a new trial, arguing that the court erred in two respects: first, by permitting the jury to retire with an exhibit containing enlarged excerpts of deposition testimony, and second, by giving the jury the so-called “emergency” instruction.