H. F. Wilcox Oil & Gas Co. v. Jamison
| Decision Date | 02 March 1948 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 32576 |
| Citation | 1948 OK 55,190 P.2d 807,199 Okla. 691 |
| Parties | H. F. WILCOX OIL & GAS CO. v. JAMISON |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. PLEADING - Sufficiency - Implied allegations.
It is a well established principle of pleading that there need not necessarily be a direct allegation of a fact detail if the same otherwise sufficiently appears, or of a fact detail which is necessarily implied from other averments in the petition.
2. MASTER AND SERVANT - Injuries to servant - Duty of master to warn servants of new and increased dangers.
It is the duty of the master to warn his servant of new or increased dangers caused by a change in his machinery, appliances, or place or method of work, and he will be held liable for injuries resulting from his neglect of duty in this respect.
3. APPEAL AND ERROR - Sufficiency of evidence to support verdict.
If there is any testimony reasonably tending to support the verdict of the jury, and said verdict has been approved by the trial court, the judgment will not be disturbed on appeal.
4. TRIAL - Sufficiency of instructions in entirety.
All the instructions should be considered together. If when considered as a whole they state the law correctly, and without conflict, this is sufficient, even though one or more of them standing alone might be incomplete.
5. APPEAL AND ERROR - Harmless error - Admission of evidence over objection wheresimilar evidence admitted without objection.
A party may not complain of the admission of evidence over his objection, where other evidence of the same tenor was admitted without objection.
Appeal from District Court, Creek County; C.O. Beaver, Judge.
Action by Alexander Jamison, administrator of the estate of Hubert R. Crutchfield, deceased, against H. F. Wilcox Oil & Gas Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Clayton B. Pierce, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
Speakman & Speakman, of Sapulpa, for defendant in error.
¶1 This is an action for damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of the death of H.R. Crutchfield.
¶2 Plaintiff's petition alleged that Crutchfield at the time of his death was an employee of the defendant working in a shop and garage maintained by defendant for the repair and reconditioning of its delivery trucks; that the deceased was an automobile mechanic and was not skilled in the craft of replacing tires upon large trucks and such fact was known to defendant; that nevertheless the defendant imposed such duties upon the deceased; that on the date of his death the deceased had removed an old casing and placed a new casing on a certain White truck; that the quarters in which the deceased was required to work were narrow and inadequate and not equipped with proper lights for the safe performance of such work; that such truck casings when placed on the truck wheel are first fitted around a removable rim which becomes fastened to the casing by the inflation of the casing; that the tire removed by the deceased had become old and in bad state of repair and the rim had become rusted so that such rim adhered to the casing and inner tube as the same was removed and discarded by the deceased; that owing to the cramped condition in which the deceased was required to work, and owing to the poor lighting condition furnished by the defendant for the purpose of performing his work, the deceased did not and could not, through the exercise of reasonable care, observe that the said rim adhered to the casing at the time such casing was discarded; that the defendant had carelessly and negligently furnished rims suitable only for other trucks and had carelessly and negligently failed to provide extra rims for the use of this particular truck; that the defendant owned and kept at said garage some eight or ten trucks, but only the one upon which deceased was working used this particular kind of rim; that the use of a rim, other than the one suitable for use by this particular truck, was dangerous; that the deceased in the exercise of reasonable care was unable to find or locate in the supplies furnished by the defendant corporation a rim suitable for the truck in question, and owing to his lack of knowledge and experience in the changing of truck tires, did not know or understand the difference between such rims or that the use of any other rim would be dangerous.
¶3 It was further alleged that it was the duty of the defendant company to properly instruct and advise the deceased of such fact, inasmuch as the defendant company had carelessly failed to provide suitable rims for such purpose; that as a proximate result of the careless and negligent acts and omissions of the defendant as herein set forth, and on account of the careless and negligent acts of the defendant in failing to provide suitable and adequate lights and sufficient room in which the deceased was required to perform such labor, and as a proximate result of the other careless and negligent acts and omissions of the defendant company as herein stated, while the deceased was attempting to place such rim and new casing upon the wheel of such truck, said rim was caused to fly violently from its place by reason of the air pressure in such inner tube and casing, resulting in the instant death of the deceased; that the death was proximately caused and brought about by the negligent acts of the defendant as set forth, and to plaintiff's damage.
¶4 The defendant, after admitting its identity and the employment of Crutchfield, answered by way of a general denial and affirmatively pleaded the defense of contributory negligence and assumption of risk.
¶5 The cause was submitted to a jury which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. From the judgment entered in accord therewith, defendant appeals.
¶6 All assignments of error are presented under six propositions. In propositions one and two it contended that actionable negligence on the part of the employer proximately causing the accident and consequent injury to the servant was not shown by the evidence and that the court erred in refusing to withdraw from the consideration of the jury allegations of negligence, charged in the petition, but not supported by the evidence.
¶7 It was shown by the evidence that Crutchfield filed a written application for employment with the defendant, stating his occupation to be that of a mechanic and gas engine operator. He worked for defendant at its garage in the maintenance of trucks for about eleven months. Among the duties he performed was that of changing tires on the trucks. The trucks were large oil delivery trucks. In fitting the large truck tire to the wheel the tire is first placed upon a rim to which is then adjusted a metal ring and a lock ring so that the tire becomes locked upon the rim by the pressure against the lock ring formed by inflation of the tire. These tires when inflated for their proper use carried such a compression of air that if the lock rings did not hold an explosion of great force would occur. For the first nine or ten months of Crutchfield's employment the defendant operated two International trucks which were serviced at the garage. He frequently changed the tires on these trucks. During the time, lock rings or rims occasionally become damaged and new rings and rim assemblies were kept at the garage and occasionally used for replacement of damaged parts.
¶8 About 30 or 40 days before deceased was killed, defendant began operating five more International trucks and two White trucks in the vicinity of the garage where deceased was employed. At the time deceased was killed he was working on one of the White trucks. There was evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that he had never before changed a tire on a White truck and that such fact was known to the defendant. The International trucks were equipped with "Firestone" tire rings. The White trucks were equipped with "Goodyear" tire lock rings. These lock rings could not be interchanged with safety.
¶9 The White truck on the date of the accident was driven into the garage to a distance of about two-thirds of the length of the garage. There was a space of from two to three feet between the truck and the side wall of the garage. Crutchfield removed an old tire and rim from the truck's wheel and rolled it to the front of the truck under a light for the purpose of placing a new tire on the rim. The old tire was removed from the rim. The lock ring had rusted and adhered to the tire. The old tire with the lock ring stuck to it was rolled away from the front of the truck and out of the circle of light in that working place to another place in the garage. A new tire was placed on the rim and then search made for the lock ring which held the old tire in place. After some unsuccessful search, but without inspection of the old tire, a new "Firestone" lock ring was removed from the wall of the garage and placed on the new tire and rim.
¶10 One witness testified that the old tire, was rolled away from the front of the truck before any effort was made to install the new tire on the rim, that "we didn't have enough room for two tires in front of the truck and work."
¶11 After the substitute "Firestone" lock ring had been installed the new tire was inflated and Crutchfield rolled it to the truck wheel and while placing it on the wheel the lock ring failed, causing an explosion of the tire and the death of Crutchfield.
¶12 It is asserted by the defendant that the first charge of negligence in plaintiff's petition, that the quarters in which the servant was required to work were too narrow and were therefore not safe, must fail in that the proof did not establish the relation of proximate cause and effect between the narrowness of the working place and the accident. Defendant says the charge that the place where the servant was required to work was unsafe because of insufficient light, was not established in that the proof was to the effect that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial