Haworth v. Mosher, 9760.
Decision Date | 22 May 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 9760.,9760. |
Citation | 395 F.2d 566 |
Parties | Harry HAWORTH, Appellant, v. Christopher F. MOSHER, Charles H. Grigsby, Russell Taylor, George Taylor, Marion Mark Masters, driver of the truck owned by George Boekhoff, Jerry E. Crown, Wayne T. Abbey, Elisa Newton Crabtree, and George Boekhoff, Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
James M. Little, Oklahoma City, Okl. (Leslie L. Conner and Leslie L. Conner, Jr., of Conner, Little & Conner, and O. A. Cargill, Jr., Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellant.
Mart Brown, Kenneth N. McKinney and William G. Smith, Oklahoma City, Okl. (H. A. Bud Carter, Duvall, Head, McKinney & Travis, Pierce, Duncan, Couch & Hendrickson, Rinehart, Morrison & Cooper, Fenton, Fenton, Smith, Reneau & Moon, Cheek, Cheek & Cheek, and Monnet, Hayes, Bullis, Grubb & Thompson, Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellees.
Before LEWIS, SETH and HICKEY, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is brought to us under Rule 54(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., from a summary judgment entered by the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The judgment, adverse to the appellant-plaintiff, was premised on the pleadings and depositions and affidavits filed in support of appellees-defendants' motions lodged under Rule 56. Appellant submitted no counter-filings.
Appellant seeks recovery of damages for personal injuries suffered in an automobile accident occurring during a dust storm. The evidentiary facts are not in dispute and appellant's present contention is limited to the claim that the ultimate facts of negligence and proximate cause remain in dispute and thus render summary judgment inappropriate The substance of the trial court's judgment is bottomed upon the conclusion that the original acts of the appellees, regardless of negligence, were not the proximate cause of the injuries claimed by appellant.
The record shows and the trial court found the following evidentiary facts to be without material dispute:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kelly v. Montoya
...negligence is an independent intervening cause. The Oklahoma law, on which defendants rely, supports these contentions. Haworth v. Mosher, 395 F.2d 566 (10th Cir. 1968); Beesley v. United States, 364 F.2d 194 (10th Cir. 1966); Evans v. Caldwell, 429 P.2d 962 (Okl.1967); Transport Indemnity ......
-
O'Connor v. Nigg, 91-350
...of a cause of action against Ling. Williams, 314 S.E.2d at 280. For similar results under similar circumstances, see Haworth v. Mosher (10th Cir.1968), 395 F.2d 566, and Lewis v. Esselman (Mo.1976), 539 S.W.2d As in Halsey, the defendant in this case was not obliged to foresee or anticipate......
-
Quarles v. Tenn. Steel Haulers, Inc.
...485 S.E.2d 895, 900 (N.C. Ct. App. 1997) (relying on the fact that police officers had taken control of the scene); Haworth v. Mosher, 395 F.2d 566, 569 (10th Cir. 1968) (holding once another driver "came to a complete rest without collision or injury," the causal chain broke). 6. See, e.g.......
-
Vogt v. General Telephone Co. of Southwest
...parked or stopped on the roadway in violation of 47 Oklahoma Statutes 1971 § 11-1001. The cases are thus applicable. In Haworth v. Mosher, 395 F.2d 566 (Tenth Cir. 1968) the granting of a Motion for Summary Judgment in a negligence case was affirmed wherein the trial Court had held the acts......