Fletcher v. Meadow Gold Co.

• Decision Date: 14 July 1970
• Docket Number: No. 42030,42030
• Citation: 1970 OK 135,472 P.2d 885
• Parties: Clifton C. FLETCHER, Plaintiff in Error, v. MEADOW GOLD COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Beatrice Food Company, a Delaware Corporation and John Doe, Defendants in Error.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 885

472 P.2d 885

Clifton C. FLETCHER, Plaintiff in Error, v. MEADOW GOLD COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Beatrice Food Company, a Delaware Corporation and John Doe Defendants in Error.

No. 42030.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

July 14, 1970.

Syllabus by the Court

1. In an action for damages, where the evidence is conflicting but the verdict of the jury is sustained by competent evidence, it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to grant a new trial upon the ground that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the evidence or that a motion for directed verdict should have been sustained.

2. Where it is determined that trial court acted arbitrarily, clearly abused its discretion, or erred on some pure, unmixed question of law in granting new trial, order granting new trial will be reversed.

Appeal from District Court of Tulsa County; S. J. Clendinning, Judge.

Action for damages for personal injuries. Trial court overruled demurrer to plaintiff's evidence and motion for directed verdict at close of evidence and submitted case to jury. Judgment was entered upon jury verdict for plaintiff, and trial court thereafter sustained defendants' motion for new trial and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded with directions.

Paul W. Brightmire, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Hudson, Wheaton & Brett, Tulsa, for defendants in error.

BERRY, Vice Chief Justice.

The issue presented by this appeal concerns propriety of the trial court's order and judgment granting motion for new trial of defendants in error, hereafter defendants, after judgment had been entered upon a jury verdict for plaintiff.

Pertinent to the issue, matters summarized are disclosed by the pleadings and evidence. Beatrice Foods, Inc., sells and delivers dairy products in Tulsa, Oklahoma, under name of Meadow Gold Company. Products are delivered in trucks leased from Ryder Truck Rentals Company, a leasing company which services and maintains this equipment in its own shop, located across the street from defendants. Meadow Gold drivers, all clad in a company uniform, driver their trucks to Ryder for servicing as needed. Plaintiff had been employed by Ryder as a mechanic for five years prior to this accident.

Plaintiff was standing stop a large truck repairing an overhead door, assisted by two other Ryder employees who moved and held the door in the proper position for plaintiff to perform repairs. While so engaged an employee clad in a Meadow Gold uniform, identified only as John Doe, drove a delivery truck up in front of the door and honked for admittance. Plaintiff's co-workers then were holding the door in position 12--18 inches off the ground. John Doe left his truck, approached the door and asked to bring the truck into the shop, although able to see the door was blocked by the van upon which plaintiff was standing. One worker (Schreiner) attempting to get Doe's attention shouted to him that they were working on the door, first motioning through the window 'for him to go around', and then 'yelled' for him to go around and use a side door. Despite the fact witnesses shouted warning against touching the door Doe 'grabbed' and raised the door straight up some 4--5 feet off the ground. The top of the moving door struck plaintiff's head, which was forced backward and wedged between the moving door and a pipe, causing plaintiff to cry out in pain. Climbing atop the truck to help, Schreiner found plaintiff bleeding on his face and cheekbone, after which plaintiff was administered first aid and sent to a clinic. The accident resulted in injuries, some of which were permanent and affected plaintiff's ability to hold employment. Apparently upon discovering what had taken place John Doe got into his truck and fled the scene, never to be heard of again, although Doe's physical description was established. No Meadow Gold trucks were missing on this date, all drivers were authorized to drive their trucks into Ryder and report malfunction. Defendants admitted considering time and place, it was a fair presumption this occurrence involved a salesman who had finished his route and was bringing a truck in for service. The petition alleged plaintiff's injuries were proximately caused by gross and wanton negligence of John Doe in failing to heed warnings and raising the door with reckless disregard for plaintiff's safety, such negligence and lack of care being imputed to defendants.

Defendants' amended answer was a general denial, with specific denial Doe was acting as an agent, or within scope of his employment. Further, if guilty of negligence, plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in failing to keep proper lookout and exercise ordinary care for his own safety under the circumstances; although plaintiff knew, or should have known he was placing himself in a perilous position, notwithstanding such knowledge plaintiff failed to exercise proper degree of care to afford protection from consequences of his own misconduct.

The reply denied matters inconsistent with allegations of the petition, and specifically denied plaintiff was guilty of negligence in any respect.

The case was tried to a jury. At close of plaintiff's evidence the trial court reserved ruling upon defendants' demurrer to the evidence. Upon completion of defendants' evidence both parties' motions for directed verdict were overruled and the case was submitted to the jury under instructions, only one of which is questioned on appeal. Verdict was returned in plaintiff's favor, upon which judgment ($17,000.00) was entered. Defendants filed motion for new trial and, following oral argument, were granted time to brief. The trial court thereafter entered order and judgment sustaining defendants' motion for new trial.

The court stated specifically:

'* * * The court bases its conclusion to sustain defendants' motion for new trial upon the proposition that as an unmixed question of law the plaintiff's evidence, when viewed most favorably to the plaintiff, was insufficient to prove a prima facie case of negligence against the defendants herein.'

Plaintiff's appeal is predicated upon the single proposition the trial court's order granting new trial was reversible error as a matter of law. Summarized, the supporting argument is that in cases where the standard of liability is negligence and there is a debatable issue upon which reasonable men might differ the issue must be resolved by the jury. And, where this is done, a trial court cannot reweigh the evidence and substitute his judgment for the jury's verdict simply because different inferences or conclusions could have been drawn, or because the trial court considers another result more reasonable. See Hansen v. Cunningham, Okl., 285 P.2d 432; A.T. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Hicks, 208 Okl. 689, 258 P.2d 672.

The elements and nature of proof required to establish the existence, and extent of responsibility for consequences of negligence, have been reiterated innumerable times. The essential elements of negligence are provable by circumstantial evidence. Towery v. Guffey, Okl., 358 P.2d 812; Coe v. Esau, Okl., 377 P.2d 815. All plaintiff is required to prove to establish causal connection between defendants' negligence and plaintiff's injury is to make it appear injury, in whole or in part, resulted from defendants' negligence. J. J....