Laughlin v. Lamar
| Decision Date | 27 November 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 34158,34158 |
| Citation | 205 Okla. 372,237 P.2d 1015 |
| Parties | LAUGHLIN v. LAMAR. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
In a civil action for damages resulting from an automobile collision, it is reversible error to allow, over timely objection, the introduction in evidence of the records in a criminal action against the defendant predicated upon the same factual situation, without proof of a plea of guilty to the criminal charge.
Pierce, Rucker, Mock, Tabor & Duncan, James W. Shepherd, Jr., Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
C. S. McCuistion, John W. Tyree, Lawton, for defendant in error.
This is an action wherein William Ray Lamar, plaintiff, seeks to recover from William L. Laughlin, defendant, damages for personal injuries received in an automobile and truck collision. Judgment for $2,000 was rendered for plaintiff upon a jury verdict and the defendant has appealed. The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.
The sole proposition determinative of the case goes to the admissibility of certain evidence. Shortly after noon on the 21st day of May, 1948, plaintiff was driving a 1935 Ford car in a westerly direction on U. S. Highway No. 277 between Fletcher and Elgin, Oklahoma. Defendant, driving a 1948 Ford dump truck in the same direction on the same highway, overtook and started to pass plaintiff's car at a point where another road entered said highway from the south or left side. Plaintiff intended to turn left into the side road and the testimony is in sharp conflict as to whether or not he had started to turn when defendant attempted to pass. The two vehicles collided and this action was subsequently instituted by plaintiff to recover for personal injuries he allegedly received.
At the trial, over the objection of the defendant, plaintiff was permitted to introduce in evidence a Justice of the Peace criminal docket showing the filing of a criminal complaint against the defendant for reckless driving by reason of this collision and the receipt of $19 as payment of fine and costs. Predicated upon the admission of this record, extensive testimony of the Justice of the Peace about the entries made in the docket and related incidents as well as that of defendant on cross examination, was permitted to be introduced. There was no competent proof that defendant entered a plea of guilty to the reckless driving charge.
The general rule applicable to such evidence was stated by this court in the case of Goodwin v. Continental Casualty Co., 175 Okl. 469, 53 P.2d 241, 242, as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baker v. Saint Francis Hosp., 100,713.
...longer subject to appellate review, is admissible in a civil case (12 O.S.2001 § 2803) solely as an admission against interest. Laughlin v. Lamar, 1951 OK 330, ¶ 5, 237 P.2d 1015, 1016; Dover v. Smith, 1963 OK 166, 385 P.2d 287; Zumwalt v. Moran, 1953 OK 223, ¶ 0 syl. 2, 260 P.2d 725. The o......
-
State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Giger
...appellate review, is admissible, 12 O.S.2001 § 2803.22., and a guilty plea would be admissible as an admission against interest. Laughlin v. Lamar, 1951 OK 330, ¶ 5, 237 P.2d 1015, 34. The pertinent provisions of RGDP Rule 6.4, 5 O.S.2001 Ch. 1, App. 1-A, state: "The respondent shall within......
-
Wade v. Reimer
...a deliberate admission or declaration against interest. The ultimate question of negligence remains one for the jury. Laughlin v. Lamar, 205 Okl. 372, 237 P.2d 1015; Zumwalt v. Moran, Okl., 260 P.2d 725; see annotation in 18 A.L.R.2d at page The provisions of Title 47 O.S.Supp.1955 § 121.3(......
-
Heldenbrand v. Lester
...and 516 and the cases of Quick v. State, 75 Okl.Cr. 243, 130 P.2d 102; Mougell v. State, 97 Okl.Cr. 180, 260 P.2d 447; Laughlin v. Lamar, 205 Okl. 372, 237 P.2d 1015; Dover v. Smith, Okl., 385 P.2d 287, 289; and Haynes v. Rollins, Okl., 434 P.2d The cases cited tend to bear out counsel's ar......