Croft v. Dodson
| Decision Date | 19 March 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 37288,37288 |
| Citation | 310 P.2d 375 |
| Parties | Dewey A. CROFT, Plaintiff in Error, v. C. I. DODSON, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where necessary, on appeal from order granting new trial, reviewing court will examine entire record to determine whether trial court, in granting new trial, abused its discretion, acted arbitrarily, or erred on some unmixed question of law.
2. Where reviewing court determines that trial court acted arbitrarily, clearly abused its discretion, or erred on some unmixed question of law in granting new trial, order granting new trial will be reversed.
Appeal from the District Court of Mayes County; Josh J. Evans, Judge.
Action for damages wherein jury returned a verdict for defendant and trial court sustained plaintiff's motion for new trial. Defendant appeals from order granting new trial. Reversed.
Rucker, Tabor & Cox, Joseph M. Best and Joseph A. Sharp, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.
Wilkerson & Wilkerson, Pryor, for defendant in error.
This action was brought by C. I. Dodson, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, against Dewey A. Croft, hereinafter referred to as defendant, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff as a result of an automobile accident which occurred on the Turner Turnpike on September 25, 1953, at which time plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile driven by defendant. Upon trial of the case, the jury returned a unanimous verdict for the defendant. Plaintiff thereupon filed a motion for a new trial upon the sole stated ground that the verdict was contrary to and not supported by the evidence. The trial court sustained plaintiff's motion for new trial and defendant has perfected this appeal therefrom.
As his only proposition of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in sustaining plaintiff's motion for new trial; that the order sustaining such motion is contrary to the law and the evidence, that the action of the trial court was arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion.
It was not contended in the trial court that any errors of law occurred in the trial of the case and careful examination of the record fails to disclose any such errors. No objection was made nor exception taken to any of the instructions given the jury by the trial court and a review of the record indicates that the instructions given fairly and correctly advised the jury upon the rules of law applicable to and governing the jury's consideration and determination of the matter.
The journal entry of judgment granting the new trial recites that the motion for a new trial alleged as the sole reason therefor that the verdict returned by the jury engaged in the trial of said cause was not sustained by and is contrary to the evidence, but such journal entry does not specify upon what ground the court sustained such motion. Such journal entry was filed on November 28, 1955. On March 14, 1956, the trial judge, apparently upon his own motion, drew up, signed and filed in the case, another journal entry of judgment sustaining motion for new trial, which was substantially the same as the journal entry previously filed except that the latter entry recited that plaintiff's motion for a new trial was sustained 'for the reason that said verdict is not sustained by the evidence and is contrary to both the law and the evidence.'
The trial court in sustaining the motion for a new trial announced his disagreement with the verdict of the jury. The court, upon request, declined to give his reasons for granting the motion for new trial.
When a motion for a new trial is sustained, the trial court is not limited to the grounds stated in the motion therefor. Rein v. Patton, 208 Okl. 442, 257 P.2d 280. It is the duty of the trial court, however, upon request of a litigant, to state the reasons for sustaining the motion for a new trial, and upon appeal from the order granting a new trial, this court will confine its review to the reasons so assigned by the trial court. Every v. Every, Okl., 293 P.2d 612; McGlone v. Landreth, 200 Okl. 425, 195 P.2d 268; Little v. Lovett, 193 Okl. 157, 141 P.2d 794; Browne v. Bassett, 191 Okl. 22, 126 P.2d 705; Shreve v. Cornell, 182 Okl. 193, 77 P.2d 1.
It is apparent that counsel for defendant was attempting to get the trial court to specify the grounds upon which the court was granting a new trial. This he had a right to do. The remarks of the trial court indicated that the court was of the opinion that there was no evidence of contributory negligence, intervening negligence of a third party, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cosmo Const. Co. v. Loden
...of appeal. 12 O.S.1951 § 556; Aldridge v. Patterson, Okl., 276 P.2d 202; Harley v. Damron, 104 Okl. 143, 230 P. 507. In Croft v. Dodson, Okl., 310 P.2d 375, 377, we 'It therefore becomes apparent that the only question presented by this appeal is, may a trial court grant a new trial under s......
-
Wade v. Reimer
...no fundamental error in the action of the trial court. O.S.1951, Const. Art. 23, § 6; Wright v. Erwin, Okl., 346 P.2d 187; Croft v. Dodson, Okl., 310 P.2d 375; Warren v. Layman, Okl., 267 P.2d 590; See also Maddox v. Bridal, supra; McFarland v. Crabtree, Okl., 331 P.2d Lastly, it is argued ......
-
Bishop's Restaurants, Inc., of Tulsa v. Whomble
...the hostess there would be one less person in the group. Thinking there was an extra chair, the hostess carried it away. In Croft v. Dodson, Okl., 310 P.2d 375, 378, it was 'By virtue of Article XXIII, Section 6, of the Constitution of this State, contributory negligence is a question of fa......
-
Foster v. Boyd
...Okl., 346 P.2d 187; Hanna v. Parrish [& Clark], Okl., 344 P.2d 658; Neely v. Morris, Okl., 333 P.2d 301; Croft v. Dodson, supra [Okl., 310 P.2d 375]; Warren v. Layman, Okl., 267 P.2d and in the first paragraph of the syllabus to Bocock v. Tulsa Stockyards Co., Okl., 309 P.2d 279, it was sai......