Equels v. Tulsa City Lines, Inc.

• Decision Date: 04 April 1944
• Docket Number: 30598.
• Citation: 147 P.2d 460,194 Okla. 79,1944 OK 158
• Parties: EQUELS v. TULSA CITY LINES, Inc., et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

147 P.2d 460

194 Okla. 79, 1944 OK 158

EQUELS v. TULSA CITY LINES, Inc., et al.

No. 30598.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

April 4, 1944

Syllabus by the Court.

1. To maintain an action for wrongful death, existence of the beneficiaries named in the statute to whom the action survives and pecuniary loss to them must be alleged and proved.

2. Evidence that plaintiff's decedent was seen in an intoxicated condition before the accident causing his death and that he entered a car driven by an intoxicated driver and that there was whisky in the car in which he was riding is sufficient to constitute question of fact for the jury on the issue of contributory negligence due to intoxication.

3. Where the instructions given reasonably present the law applicable to the case, this court will not reverse the cause for refusal to give a particular instruction requested by the plaintiff.

Appeal from District Court, Tulsa County; Leslie E. Webb, Judge.

Action for wrongful death by Ollie Jane Equels, administratrix of the estate of William Alonzo Equels, deceased, against Tulsa City Lines, Inc., and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Ward & Ward, of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Pierce & Rucker and Fred M. Mock, all of Oklahoma City, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM.

This action was commenced by Ollie Jane Equels, administratrix of the estate of William Alonzo Equels, deceased, against Loren Larkin and Tulsa City Lines, Inc., a corporation, to recover damages for the death of the said William Alonzo Equels which resulted from the collision of an automobile and a bus at the intersection at Houston and Fifth Streets in Tulsa, Oklahoma. A trial to the jury resulted in a judgment for the defendats and plaintiff appeals. The parties will be referred to in the opinion by their trial court designation and William Alonzo Equels will be referred to for convenience as the decedent.

The record discloses that decedent was killed when a Ford car driven by Eddie Stone in which he and a woman passenger were riding collided with a bus driven by Loren Larkin. The bus was making a left-hand turn from Fifth Street into Houston Street. The bus had been going west, had stopped at the stop line at the intersection of Fifth and Houston Streets and was in the process of turning left when it was struck by the oncoming automobile driven by Eddie Stone.

The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to prove that the proximate cause of the injury was a failure of the bus driver Larkin to drive the bus past the center of the intersection of Houston and Fifth Streets before beginning his left-hand turn. The defendants introduced evidence tending to establish that the automobile driven by Eddie Stone was going at an excessive rate of speed and that decedent and all the persons in the automobile were intoxicated.

There are nine specifications of error. These will be considered in their order. Specifications of error Numbers 1 and 2 present the argument that the trial court erred in refusing to give certain instructions, the first one to the effect that it was the duty of the driver of the bus to go beyond the center of the intersection of Fifth Street and Houston Street before beginning the left-hand turn. We are of the opinion and hold that there was no error in failing to give this instruction. The question had been properly presented by an instruction to the effect that the ordinance of the City of Tulsa with relation thereto had been introduced in evidence and that a violation thereof was prima facie evidence of negligence. Where the instructions given reasonably state the law applicable to the case this court will not reverse the cause for a refusal to give a particular instruction requested by the plaintiff. Breshears v. Wright, 180 Okl. 553, 71 P.2d 455; Kansas, O. & G. R. Co. v. Pruitt, 191 Okl 131, 128 P.2d 231; Hartman v. Dunn, 186 Okl. 9, 95 P.2d 897. In these specifications of error plaintiff also complains of a failure to instruct the jury that if the automobile in which decedent was riding reached the intersection of Fifth and Houston Streets before the defendants' bus did then and in that event decedent had the right-of-way. Instruction No. 17 is almost in that identical language and this alleged error is without merit.

In specification of error No. 3 plaintiff claims that the...