Andrean v. Mathews
| Citation | 230 P. 889,104 Okla. 198,1924 OK 841 |
| Decision Date | 07 October 1924 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 14698 |
| Parties | ANDREAN v. MATHEWS. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
¶0 1. Appeal and Error--Review--Conclusiveness of Verdict.
Where there is competent evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict of the jury, and no prejudicial errors of law are shown, or its rulings upon law questions during the trial, the verdict and findings of the jury are binding, and conclusive upon appeal.
2. Negligence--Definition--Jury Question.
"Negligence" is the absence of care according to the circumstances of the case, and is always a question for the jury when reasonable men may differ as to the facts or as to the inferences to be drawn from them.
3. Same.
In an action for damages, where a given state of facts is such that reasonable men may differ upon the question as to whether there was negligence, the determination of the matter is for the jury.
4. Judgment Sustained. The record in this case examined, and the evidence held sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury.
Coffey & Grove, for plaintiff in error.
E. I. Saddler, for defendant in error.
¶1 This is an appeal from a judgment rendered by the district court of Tulsa county, wherein the appellee, Laura Mathews, was the plaintiff, and the appellant, D. H Adrean, was defendant. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for personal injuries and damages to her buggy, which injuries she alleges were the result of the negligence of the defendant. To the petition of plaintiff the defendant filed his answer, generally denying all the allegations of plaintiff's petition, and sets up the defense of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The facts, as disclosed by the record, show that the plaintiff in company with another colored woman, was traveling along the highway leading from Sand Springs to Tulsa, in a one-horse buggy, on the extreme right hand side of the road; that immediately in front of defendant's vehicle was another wagon and a buggy; that the defendant's wife, Mrs. Adrean, was driving a Ford truck, which belonged to her husband, the defendant, and approaching the plaintiff from the rear, and that immediately behind the Ford truck driven by Mrs. Adrean, there was a Nash touring car, driven by a Mrs. Dawson, with whom the defendant in this case, Adrean, was riding. At the point where the injury was sustained which is complained of, Mrs. Adrean, who was driving the truck, which belonged to her husband, the defendant, attempted to pass to the left of the plaintiff, and likewise the parties in the Nash car followed immediately behind the Ford truck, and at about the time they were opposite or passing the buggy driven by the plaintiff, the driver of the truck, Mrs. Adrean, observed a car rapidly approaching from the opposite direction, or meeting her, and realizing that she would be unable to pass the vehicle driven by the plaintiff, and other horse-drawn vehicles immediately in front of the plaintiff before meeting or coming in contact with the oncoming car, slowed down the speed of the truck and was attempting to drop back to the rear of the buggy driven by the plaintiff and pulled too far to the right, coming in contact with the buggy, which resulted in the destruction of one wheel of the buggy, and turning the same over with its occupants.
¶2 The plaintiff alleges the injuries sustained to the buggy to be of the sum of $ 50, and that the personal injuries received by plaintiff to be the sum of $ 950. On the trial of the case to a jury, a verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $ 180, and judgment rendered by the court in accordance therewith, from which verdict and judgment the appellant prosecutes this appeal, and sets forth various assignments of error, but in his brief bases his right to a reversal in this case solely on one proposition, that:
"The evidence shows conclusively in our opinion that this was an unavoidable accident and not negligence, and that same was unavoidable and could not be prevented by human care, skill or foresight, under the circumstances as related by the witnesses, both for the plaintiff and for the defendant.
¶3 Appellant cites numerous excerpts, or portions of the testimony given by the witnesses, both for the plaintiff and for the defendant and numerous authorities in support of the above contention, but we are unable to concur with counsel for appellant in the contention made. The evidence which appellant calls our attention to, aside from the brief statement of facts heretofore set forth. shows that there was a sharp conflict in the evidence as to how the collision occurred. Some of the witnesses testified that the buggy was struck by the truck at the side and as the truck was slowing down evidently for the purpose of retaking its place to the rear of the buggy, and that the collision was the result of the driver of the truck pulling the truck too far to the right, and in direct contact with the buggy. Other witnesses testified that the truck had slowed down and was to the rear of the buggy, and that the Nash touring car, which was driven immediately in the rear of the truck, being a heavier car and not able to stop with such rapidity, or slow down as the truck had, ran into or skidded against the truck, forcing or driving the truck against...
To continue reading
Request your trial