Baker v. Traders & General Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 22 October 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 4459.,4459. |
| Parties | BAKER v. TRADERS & GENERAL INS. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Clayton B. Pierce, Oklahoma City, Okl. (John R. Couch and James W. Shepherd, Jr., Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellant.
George E. Fisher, Oklahoma City, Okl. (James E. Grigsby, Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRATTON, H U X M A N and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.
Two pickup trucks were involved in a traffic accident in Oklahoma. The accident occurred in the intersection of two country roads, one running east and west and the other north and south. R. B. Baker owned one of the trucks and was driving it along the road running east and west, proceeding west. Clark Brothers Well Servicing Company owned the other truck and it was going along the road running north and south, headed north. Anvil O'Bryant and L. R. Butler, employees of the Clark Company were in the truck; O'Bryant was driving; and Butler was a passenger. The trucks collided in the intersection; Butler was injured; and in a proceeding before the Industrial Commission of Oklahoma he received an award under the Workmen's Compensation Act of the state. Traders & General Insurance Company, the insurance carrier of the Clark Company under the Workmen's Compensation Act, paid to Butler the amount due under the award. The insurance company then filed this action against Baker to recover the amount paid to Butler. It was alleged in the complaint that negligence on the part of Baker was the proximate cause of the accident and resulting injury; and that the insurance company was subrogated to the rights of Butler against Baker to the extent of the amount paid. Among other defenses, Baker pleaded contributory negligence on the part of the Clark Company, acting by and through O'Bryant, in the operation of its truck. The court struck that defense. The cause was tried to the court without a jury. The court found among other things that both Baker and O'Bryant were negligent in the operation of the trucks driven by them, respectively; that the concurring negligence of the two was the proximate cause of the injury which Butler sustained; and that Butler was not guilty of contributory negligence. Specifically in respect to the negligence of Baker, the court further found that the truck driven by O'Bryant reached and entered the intersection before the one driven by Baker did; and that Baker did not yield the right of way, but kept going. The court concluded that the insurance company was subrogated to the rights of Butler against Baker to the extent of the amount paid to Butler. Judgment was rendered for the insurance company, and Baker appealed.
The judgment is challenged on the ground that there was no proof of primary negligence on the part of Baker in the operation of his truck which proximately caused the accident and resulting injury to Butler. It is argued that Baker approached the intersection on O'Bryant's right; that Baker had the right of way; and that he neither did nor failed to do anything which constituted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vidrine v. Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. Co., 51135
... ... whose negligence has itself contributed to the employee's injuries, in contravention of the general tort principle that one himself at fault cannot recover damages caused in whole or part by his own ... 561, 9 N.W.2d 842; Johnson v. Willoughby, 183 S.W.2d 201 (Tex.Civ.App.1944); Baker v. Traders & General Ins. Co., 199 F.2d 289 (10th Cir ... Page 242 ... 1952); Texaco, Inc., ... ...
-
Haney v. International Harvester Co.
...305, 183 N.W. 569; Royal Indemnity Co. v. Southern California Petroleum Corp., 67 N.M. 137, 353 P.2d 358, 363; Baker v. Traders & General Ins. Co. (10th Cir.) 199 F.2d 289 (Oklahoma law); Clark v. Chicago, M. St. P. & P.R. Co., 214 Wis. 295, 252 N.W. 685, 689.) Most of these cases have reas......
-
Witt v. Jackson
...305, 183 N.W. 569; Royal Indemnity Co. v. Southern California Petroleum Corp., 67 N.M. 137, 353 P.2d 358, 363; Baker v. Traders & General Ins. Co. (10th Cir.) 199 F.2d 289 (Oklahoma law); Clark v. Chicago, M. St. P. R. Co., 214 Wis. 295, 252 N.W. 685, 689.) Most of these cases have reasoned......
-
Schweizer v. Elox Division of Colt Industries
...(at 445--446; emphasis supplied, citations omitted) See also Cyr v. F.S. Payne Co., 112 F.Supp. 526 (D.Conn.1953); Baker v. Traders & Gen. Ins. Co., 199 F.2d 289 (10 Cir.1952); Williams Bros. Lumber Co. v. Meisel, 85 Ga.App. 72, 68 S.E.2d 384 (Ct.App.1951); Royal Indemnity Co. v. Southern C......