This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

PGE operates an electrical distribution system, which uses wooden poles to hold its power lines. The poles remain in service from between 40-84 years. PGE does not replace poles on a fixed schedule but inspects and treats poles on a seven-year cycle and replaces them on an as necessary basis. Poles are depreciated as a group based on projected useful life for all poles in its system and for tax and accounting purposes that is 37 years. There is no market for used poles, and there is no salvage or retirement value. Presently, PGE invoices tortious third parties that have damaged their property the full price of a new pole rather than the un-depreciated cost of the damaged pole. On June 20, 1994, Taber’s (D) pickup truck struck and damaged a power pole owned by PGE (P). The pole had been installed in 1934, but P sued D for $2,213 labor and $407.85 for the full cost of the replacement pole itself. D agreed to pay the labor cost but disputed the cost of the replacement pole. On September 12, 1993, a car driven by Johnson (D2) struck and damaged a P pole. P sought to recover the full value of the pole rather than the undepreciated value. P moved for summary judgment and Ds cross-moved on the dispositive cost issue. Ds were granted their cross-motions for summary judgment. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.