Meyer v. Moore
| Decision Date | 24 June 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 37843,37843 |
| Citation | 329 P.2d 676 |
| Parties | Joe MEYER, doing business as Tulsa County Airport, Plaintiff in Error, v. Joe MOORE and Wallace Moore, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The operator of an airport who for a monthly rental furnishes open ground space for the parking or storing of airplanes for customers is a bailee for hire and must exercise due care to return the bailed property in as good condition as when received.
2. Where competent evidence is introduced on the question of negligence from which reasonable men might draw different conclusions, it is one for the jury, and under like circumstances the question of proximate cause is one for the jury.
3. Record examined and held, that the verdict and judgment rendered is supported by competent evidence.
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Tulsa County; Lloyd McGuire, Judge.
An action by Joe Moore and Wallace Moore against Joe Meyer, doing business as Tulsa County Airport, to recover damages to plaintiffs' airplane, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant as bailee. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.
R. M. Cowen, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.
Hughey Baker, Tulsa, for defendants in error.
Joe Moore and Wallace Moore instituted this action against Joe Meyer, doing business as Tulsa County Airport, and Frank Sellmeyer to recover damages for injuries to an airplane owned by plaintiffs. A demurrer by the defendant, Sellmeyer, to plaintiffs' evidence was sustained and no appeal was taken from the ruling. A demurrer by the other defendant, Joe Meyer, to plaintiffs' evidence was overruled. The case was tried to a jury and resulted in a verdict for plaintiffs for the sum of $362.50, and judgment was entered accordingly. Motion for a new trial was denied and the defendant Meyer appealed. The parties will be referred to as they were in the trial court.
The amount of damage awarded plaintiffs is not questioned, but the right to recover any damage is denied. Material parts of the record are substantially as follows:
The defendant, Joe Meyer, doing business as Tulsa County Airport, operated an airport, of which Ray Carter was manager, at which ground space was available for rental to the owners of airplanes for parking or storing their planes, being commonly known as 'tie-downs', in effect, a parking lot for airplanes where chains attached to concrete blocks embedded in the ground are available for attachment to the planes, one chain for each wing and one for the tail portion. The plaintiffs availed themselves of the service and stored or parked their Aeronca Model airplane, for which they paid a rental of $5 per month. Frank Sellmeyer, owner of a Taylor Craft airplane, also rented space and obtained tie-down service at the airport. The two planes were parked adjoining each other. On the morning of October 24, 1955 the defendant, Sellmeyer, owner of the Taylor Craft plane, directed Bill Christen to remove the plane to the Municipal Airport and Christen, in attempting to remove the Sellmeyer plane, cranked the same and when the motor started the plane swung around and collided with plaintiffs' plane, thereby damaging a wing on plaintiffs' plane.
Plaintiffs alleged in their petition that the collision and damage to their plane was because of the negligence and want of care on the part of each of defendants; that the defendant, Meyer, was negligent in that the said tie-down consisted of a peg of some nature in the ground with chains extending therefrom to the plane to hold it to the ground; that he had permitted the chains to become rusted, corroded, worn, weakened and dilapidated; that the tie-down on the right wing of the Sellmeyer plane broke, permitting the same to turn into plaintiffs' plane; that the defendant Sellmeyer and Bill Christen were negligent in that Christen started the motor with the accelerator advanced and without anyone being in the cockpit or at the controls; that the defendant, Sellmeyer, was further negligent in that he failed to determine that the tie-downs were worn, weakened and dilapidated, and that he was careless in not sending another person to aid and assist Bill Christen or send a more experienced operator.
Plaintiffs further allege that the damages were caused by the combined negligence of the defendants, and each of them.
The defendant Meyer filed an answer generally denying the allegations of plaintiffs' petition and alleged that he had no knowledge of any defect in the equipment described in plaintiffs' petition. The defendant Sellmeyer filed an answer denying the allegations of the petition and specifically denied that Bill Christen was at the time of the accident acting as his agent, servant or employee. The record shows that at the time of trial Bill Christen was dead and his testimony was not available. He apparently was the only person present when plaintiffs' plane was damaged.
The defendant, Frank Sellmeyer, was called as a witness by the plaintiffs and testified that he went to the airport the day of the accident and inspected the damaged plane and the tie-downs; that he noticed a tie-down chain had broken; that at least half of it had corroded away where it broke; that it broke at the level of the ground.
Ray Carter, manager of the airport where the accident occurred, was called as a witness by plaintiffs and testified that he was in the airport office and heard the motor on the Sellmeyer plane when it was started by the pilot, Bill Christen; that no one was in the plane and that it swung around into plaintiffs' plane. He was asked to explain the function of the tie-down chains and stated:
'The tie downs are placed there to organize the airplanes in the manner we would like to keep them in; in other words, lined up in a row to secure the airplane in a fixed position against the elements--the wind and shifting around, or blowing them into each other, and of course, if I may put my personal opinion in, the management of the airport just merely provides the chains as a convenience of the people on the field.'
He further stated that the owner or pilot of the plane was responsible for tying down his own airplane. He also testified that in August or September preceding the accident in October he had the tie-downs inspected and further testified that at the time of the accident only the left chain was attached to the plane; the tail chain was not attached; that if it had been it would have prevented the forward movement of the plane and avoided breaking the chain; that in the interest of safety it was necessary to have someone in a plane when it is started to keep it under control; that it was not the intent or purpose to provide chains to hold an airplane with the engine running.
The defendant, Joe Meyer, presents his assignments of error under four propositions, the first being as follows:
'This defendant had no duty toward the plaintiffs to provide tie down chains to safeguard against an accident of the type and nature causing the damage herein.'
We agree with the statement of the defendant in his brief to the effect that the relationship between the parties established a bailment for hire under which it was the duty of defendant to use ordinary care in safeguarding the plaintiffs' airplane during the time it was stored at the airport. 15 O.S.1951 Section 466; Schulze v. Allison, 204 Okl. 147, 227 P.2d 658, 660, and Parkade Corp. v. Chehock, Okl., 312 P.2d 932, hold:
'The operator of a public parking lot as bailee for hire for the parking of automobiles for customers must exercise due care to return bailed property in as good condition as when received.'
The holding and principle of law announced in the above decisions applies to parking lots where...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Graham v. Keuchel
...Co. v. Roever, Okl., 477 P.2d 662, 667 (1970); City of Okmulgee v. Hemphill, 183 Okl. 450, 83 P.2d 189, 191 (1938); Meyer v. Moore, Okl., 329 P.2d 676, 681 (1958).24 Minor, supra note 22 at 394; Hemphill, supra note 23, 83 P.2d at 191; Green v. Sellers, Okl., 413 P.2d 522, 528 (1966).25 Tho......
-
Jackson v. Jones
...note 23 at 348; Minor, supra note 23 at 394; Champlin Oil and Refining Co. v. Roever, Okl., 477 P.2d 662, 667 (1970); Meyer v. Moore, Okl., 329 P.2d 676, 681 (1958); City of Okmulgee v. Hemphill, 183 Okl. 450, 83 P.2d 189, 191 (1938).25 Graham, supra note 23 at 348; Minor, supra note 23 at ......
-
Richey v. Cherokee Laboratories, Inc., s. 44210
...Okl. 450, 83 P.2d 189, 190, cited with approval in O. G. & E., etc. v. Butler (1942) 190 Okl. 393, 124 P.2d 397, 399; and Meyer v. Moore, Okl. (1958) 329 P.2d 676, 681. We are of the view that the factual distinction sought to be made between Cherokee and the cases now before us does not ex......
-
Minor v. Zidell Trust
...Co. v. Roever, Okl., 477 P.2d 662, 665-666 (1970); City of Okmulgee v. Hemphill, 183 Okl. 450, 83 P.2d 189, 191 (1938); Meyer v. Moore, Okl., 329 P.2d 676, 681 (1958).4 City of Okmulgee v. Hemphill, supra note 3; Green v. Sellers, Okl., 413 P.2d 522, 528 (1966).5 Reynolds, Proximate Cause-W......