City of Enid v. Smith
| Decision Date | 20 February 1934 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 21823 |
| Citation | 29 P.2d 765,167 Okla. 381,1934 OK 90 |
| Parties | CITY OF ENID v. SMITH. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Negligence--Question for Jury.
Where there is evidence on the question of negligence on which reasonable men might differ as to the facts established and from the inference to be drawn therefrom, the question is one for the jury.
2. Municipal Corporations--Duty to Keep Sidewalks in Safe Condition--Liability for Injuries to Pedestrians.
A municipal corporation is required to exercise ordinary care and diligence to keep its sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition for public use in the ordinary and usual mode of travel, and if it fails to do so, it is liable for injuries sustained by reason of such negligence; provided, however, that the party injured was exercising ordinary care and caution at the time the injury occurred.
Appeal from District Court, Garfield County; O. C. Wybrant, Judge.
Action by George Smith against the City of Enid. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Dyer, Smith & Crowley, for plaintiff in error.
Harry C. Kirkendall, for defendant in error.
¶1 This is an action commenced by George Smith, hereinafter called plaintiff, against the city of Enid, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called defendant, to recover damages in the sum of $ 13,358, which plaintiff claims to have sustained by reason of the negligent act of the defendant in failing to keep its sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition for public use in the ordinary and usual mode of travel, and that by reason of the failure of the defendant to perform this duty plaintiff sustained the injuries complained of in his petition.
¶2 Plaintiff alleged that he sustained certain injuries from a fall upon the sidewalk which was defective and was not maintained by the defendant in a condition for the use of the public in the ordinary and usual mode of travel.
¶3 The defendant denied primary negligence upon its part and pleaded contributory negligence upon the part of the plaintiff which caused his injuries, if any.
¶4 Plaintiff denied contributory negligence, upon his part, and the pleadings thus filed formed the issues which were submitted to the jury for its consideration.
¶5 The instructions of the court contained every legal principle involved in the case relating to personal injuries, and the evidence presented by the plaintiff sustained the allegations in the petition.
¶6 The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and assessed his amount of recovery in the sum of $ 1,325.
¶7 Where there is evidence on the question of negligence on which reasonable men might differ as to the facts established, or from the inference to be drawn therefrom, the question is one for the jury. Bruce v. McIntosh, 57 Okla. 774, 159 P. 261; Shawnee Elec. & Gas Co. v. Griffith, 96 Okla. 261, 222 P. 235.
"A municipal corporation is bound by law to use ordinary care and diligence to keep its streets and sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition for public use in the ordinary mode of traveling, and if it fails to do so, it is liable for injuries sustained by reason of such negligence; provided, however, that the party injured exercises ordinary care to avoid the injury. Ordinary care, as applied to this class of cases, means that degree of care and caution which might reasonably be expected from an ordinary, prudent person under the circumstances surrounding the party at the time of the injury, and this is a question of fact for the jury to determine. City of Stillwater v. Swisher, 16 Okla. 585, 85 P. 1110.
¶8 And the court held in that case as follows:
"Where a disputed question of fact is submitted to a jury in the trial court under proper instructions, the finding of the jury on such question of fact and the judgment of the court thereon will not be disturbed by this court where the record shows evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Gordon
...and where these facts and inferences are such that reasonable men might differ, negligence is a question for the jury. City of Enid v. Smith, 167 Okla. 381, 29 P.2d 765; Coker v. Moose, 180 Okla. 234, 68 P.2d 504; Dixon v. Gaso Pump & Burner Mfg. Co., 183 Okla. 249, 80 P.2d 678. ¶7 However,......
- City of Ada v. Criswell, Case Number: 28715
-
Tweed v. First Nat. Bldg. Corp.
...to the facts established and from the inference to be drawn therefrom, the question of negligence is one for the jury. City of Enid v. Smith, 167 Okl. 381, 29 P.2d 765; Wisdom v. Bernhardt, 170 Okl. 385, 40 P.2d 679; Casualty Reciprocal Exchange v. Sutfin, 196 Okl. 567, 166 P.2d I respectfu......
-
Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Gordon
... ... Thomas ... B. Pryor and W. L. Curtis, both of Fort Smith, Ark., for ... plaintiffs in error ... Bailey ... E. Bell, of Tulsa, for ... [98 P.2d 41] ... for the jury. City of Enid v. Smith, 167 Okl. 381, ... 29 P.2d 765; Coker v. Moose, 180 Okl. 234, 68 P.2d ... 504; ... ...