Drake v. Tims
| Decision Date | 07 June 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 36181,36181 |
| Citation | 287 P.2d 215 |
| Parties | Ernest E. DRAKE, Plaintiff in Error, v. Roy E. TIMS and Nell Tims, as individuals, and as a co-partnership, d/b/a Tims Funeral Home, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where it is stipulated in the trial court that all municipal traffic ordinances may be admitted in evidence, but such ordinances are not identified and incorporated into the casemade as evidence, this court will not be able to construe such ordinances or determine whether the trial court has correctly instructed the jury thereunder.
2. It is error to admit evidence of the result of an experiment where it appears that the conditions under which the experiment was made were not the same or substantially similar to the circumstances prevailing at the time of the occurrence involved in the controversy.
Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; W. A. Carlile, Judge.
Action for damages resulting from collision of plaintiff's automobile with defendants' ambulance at street intersection. Judgment for defendants and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded for a New Trial.
Herring & Hentz, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
Pierce, Mock & Duncan, Oklahoma City, Joe Francis Tulsa, for defendants in error.
This case involves an intersection accident between plaintiff's vehicle and the defendants' ambulance. The accident occurred about 10:30 P.M. on December 27, 1951, at the intersection of Western with N. W. 10th Street in Oklahoma City. Traffic at this intersection is controlled by a stop and go signal light.
The plaintiff's chief complaint before the trial court and here is that the trial court erred in telling the jury in instructions numbered 7 and 9, that the ambulance driver was exempt under Oklahoma City Ordinances from observing the ordinary rules governing traffic in regard to electric signal devices, and was exempt from observing the laws governing the speed of vehicles not described as emergency vehicles.
The questions raised will require an interpretation and construction of the City Ordinances pertaining to speed and right of way as applied to privately owned ambulances.
The Ordinances are not before us. It was stipulated that all City Ordinances might be admitted in evidence, but no Ordinances were identified and introduced in evidence by either party. Requested instructions embracing purported ordinances were submitted by the parties. Some of these were adopted by the court and some were rejected.
We are requested to construe Ordinances that have not been identified as City Ordinances and made a part of the evidence in the record before us. Under these circumstances this court is unable to construe such Ordinances and determine whether the jury was properly instructed. This court may not take judicial notice of the provisions of municipal ordinances.
It is well settled in this State that this Court may not take judicial notice of the provisions of municipal ordinances, but they must be proved before this court can determine rights or liabilities thereunder. Cunningham...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dewell v. Lawson
...facts. Tipp v. District of Columbia, 69 App.D.C. 400, 102 F.2d 264 (1939); Roloff v. Perdue, 31 F.Supp. 739 (N.D.Iowa 1939); Drake v. Tims, 287 P.2d 215 (Okl.1955). And it has been held that, lacking statutory authorization, the court cannot take judicial notice of copies of ordinances offe......
-
Jackson v. Fletcher
...v. B. F. Goodrich Company, 558 F.2d 908 (8th Cir. 1977); Ramseyer v. General Motors Corp., 417 F.2d 859 (8th Cir. 1969); Drake v. Tims, 287 P.2d 215 (Okl.1955). "A party offering evidence of out of court experiments must lay a proper foundation by showing a similarity of circumstances and c......
-
Jones v. Stemco Mfg. Co., Inc.
...was made were the same or similar to the circumstances prevailing at the time of occurrence involved in the controversy. Drake v. Tims, Okl., 287 P.2d 215 (1955). In Ruth Fuel Co. v. Nichter et al., 174 Okl. 601, 51 P.2d 502 (1935), we "... the criterion for the admissibility of such eviden......
-
Lakewood Development Co. v. Oklahoma City, 47101
...We of course agree with the city that courts may not take judicial notice of the provisions of municipal ordinances. Drake v. Tims, Okl., 287 P.2d 215 (1955); Barton v. Harmon, Okl., 221 P.2d 656 (1950). But we disagree that under the circumstances of this case it was necessary for the full......