Mckee v. Bowlin, Case Number: 27108
| Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM. |
| Citation | 87 P.2d 1079,1938 OK 507,184 Okla. 486 |
| Parties | McKEE v. BOWLIN |
| Decision Date | 11 October 1938 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 27108 |
1938 OK 507
87 P.2d 1079
184 Okla. 486
McKEE
v.
BOWLIN
Case Number: 27108
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided: October 11, 1938
¶0 1. NEGLIGENCE - Burden on Plaintiff to Show Negligence Proximately Causing Injury.
The burden is upon the plaintiff in an action to recover damages for an injury caused by alleged negligence to show the existence of negligence and that the negligence was the proximate cause of the injury.
2. SAME - Three Essential Elements of Actionable Negligence.
To constitute actionable negligence, where the wrong is not willful or intentional, three essential elements are necessary: (1) The existence of a duty on the part of the defendant to protect the plaintiff from injury; (2) failure of defendant to perform that duty; (3) injury to the plaintiff resulting from such failure.
3. NEGLIGENCE - Duty of Owner of Premises to Protect Invitee Against Dangers.
The duty owing to an invitee from the owner of a premises is to use ordinary care to protect him against dangers which the owner either knew existed or should have known existed.
4. NEGLIGENCE - Failure of Plaintiff in Personal Injury Action to Prove Primary Negligence - Demurrer to Evidence Should Be Sustained and Verdict Directed for Defendant.
Where the evidence of a plaintiff in a personal injury action fails to establish any primary negligence on the part of a defendant, a demurrer to such evidence should be sustained and a verdict directed for said defendant.
M.A. Dennis, for plaintiff in error.
Charles Skalnik, for defendant in error.
PER CURIAM.
¶1 This appeal presents error from the district court of Tulsa county. The action was one to recover damages for personal injuries and was instituted by the defendant in error, H.D. Bowlin, as plaintiff, against Mrs. W.R. McKee and one W.F. Allen, as defendants. The parties will hereafter be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.
¶2 The plaintiff alleges that while in the employ of the defendant W.F. Allen and engaged in the transportation of certain cattle belonging to the defendant Mrs. W.R. McKee he was injured as the result of certain concurrent acts of negligence on the part of the respective defendants which, combined, were the proximate cause of his injuries. There was no allegation of any willful or intentional wrong on the part of the defendants or either of them. The answer of the defendants consisted of a general denial and a plea of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Reply was a general denial. The facts as disclosed by the record are as follows: In the summer of 1934 the plaintiff was living with and working for the defendant W.F. Allen. In the early part of August of said year the defendant Mrs. W.R. McKee, who was the owner of a large number of cattle, found it necessary, on account of the drouth then prevailing, to remove said cattle from a pasture located in Creek county to a pasture located near Sand Springs in Tulsa county. On account of the heat, distance, and the age of some of the animals it was necessary that the removal be effected by transportation in trucks. Mrs. McKee did not have sufficient equipment to effect the transportation within the time limited, and W.F. Allen, who was a neighbor and friend, offered to assist with his truck; in order to facilitate the removal of the animals, they were gathered in a corral which had a loading chute by means of which the animals could be placed in the trucks and which corral was located in a rough and wooded portion of the Creek county pasture accessible only by a narrow road or trail which wound through the woods and made a sharp U-turn just before reaching the loading chute....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M & P Stores, Inc. v. Taylor, No. 37651
...necessarily of gradual development, no temporary condition or sudden change. This being true the case of McKee v. Bowlin, 184 Okl. 486, 87 P.2d 1079; City of Tulsa v. Harman, 148 Okl. 117, 299 P. 462; Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Barnes, 198 Okl. 406, 179 P.2d 132 are without Although it is th......
-
Okla. Natural Gas Co. v. Smith, Case Number: 30140
...for the contention so made we are cited to St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co. v. Gilbert, 185 Okla. 591, 95 P.2d 123; McKee v. Bowlin, 184 Okla. 486, 87 P.2d 1079; Larrimore v. American Nat. Ins. Co., 184 Okla. 614, 89 P.2d 340; Owen v. Kitterman, 178 Okla. 483, 62 P.2d 1193. An examination of ......
-
Hayes v. Okla. City, Case Number: 29295
...the duty to use ordinary care to protect her against dangers the city knew existed, or should have known existed. McKee v. Bowlin, 184 Okla. 486, 87 P.2d 1079, and other cases. ¶5 We do not understand the plaintiff asserts that there is positive evidence the city, through its agents, knew o......
-
M & P Stores, Inc. v. Taylor, No. 37651
...necessarily of gradual development, no temporary condition or sudden change. This being true the case of McKee v. Bowlin, 184 Okl. 486, 87 P.2d 1079; City of Tulsa v. Harman, 148 Okl. 117, 299 P. 462; Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Barnes, 198 Okl. 406, 179 P.2d 132 are without Although it is th......
-
Okla. Natural Gas Co. v. Smith, Case Number: 30140
...for the contention so made we are cited to St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co. v. Gilbert, 185 Okla. 591, 95 P.2d 123; McKee v. Bowlin, 184 Okla. 486, 87 P.2d 1079; Larrimore v. American Nat. Ins. Co., 184 Okla. 614, 89 P.2d 340; Owen v. Kitterman, 178 Okla. 483, 62 P.2d 1193. An examination of ......
-
Hayes v. Okla. City, Case Number: 29295
...the duty to use ordinary care to protect her against dangers the city knew existed, or should have known existed. McKee v. Bowlin, 184 Okla. 486, 87 P.2d 1079, and other cases. ¶5 We do not understand the plaintiff asserts that there is positive evidence the city, through its agents, knew o......