Muskogee Elec. Traction Co. v. Tanner
Decision Date | 27 November 1923 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 14411 |
Parties | MUSKOGEE ELECTRIC TRACTION CO. v. TANNER. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Negligence-- Last Clear Chance.
The doctrine of last clear chance applies usually in cases where the plaintiff or his property is in some danger from a threatened contact with some agency under the control of the defendant when the plaintiff cannot, and the defendant can prevent the injury. Defendant is charged with the duty of using ordinary care to prevent injury or accident in such case.
2. Same--Accident at Street Railroad Crossing--Action for Damages- -Instructions--Verdict.
Record examined, and held, that instructions of the court properly state doctrine of last clear chance. Evidence examined, and held to disclose state of facts which required submission of question of last clear chance to the jury. Held, further, that verdict in the sum of $ 200 is not contrary to the evidence, and is not excessive.
¶1 The parties will be referred to as in the court below. Plaintiff sued to recover the sum of $ 2,275 for personal injury and injury to his automobile. Issue was joined and plaintiff recovered a verdict of $ 200, upon which the court rendered judgment. The defendant's contentions in this court may be summarized as follows:
¶2 It appears that plaintiff was the owner of a Ford car which had been out of repair and therefore left with the Ford agency for the making of necessary repairs. On the date of the accident, plaintiff, who had just taken his car from the repair shop, was approaching the street car track. At a distance of 16 feet, approximately, from the street car track his engine "popped" and "went dead", but the momentum of the car carried it on to the street car track and the engine stalled. Plaintiff was unable to start his engine, and the street car struck his automobile, damaging it in an amount exceeding $ 200. It is also claimed that plaintiff suffered personal injury. There is testimony to sustain the plaintiff's theory that the defendant's servants operating the street car saw his predicament at least half a block away, and could have stopped the street car in time to avoid injuring him. There is sufficient testimony to sustain plaintiff's theory that whether he was negligent or not in getting into the predicament of being stalled on the street car track, that defendant's servants by the exercise of ordinary care, could have avoided injuring him. The court submitted this theory to the jury in instruction numbered 7, which is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sand Springs Ry. Co. v. Mcwilliams
...v. St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co., 86 Okla. 88, 206 P. 212; C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Owens, 78 Okla. 114, 189 P. 171; Muskogee Elec. Trac. Co. v. Tanner, 93 Okla. 284, 220 P. 655; Lusk v. Haley, 75 Okla. 206, 181 P. 727; St. L. S. F. Ry. Co. v. Bryan, 113 Okla. 39, 237 P. 613; Wichita Falls & N.W.......
-
Gwaltney v. Ry. Co.
...does not defeat recovery under the Oklahoma law. St. L. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Bryan, 113 Okla. 39, 237 Pac. 613; Muskogee E.T. Co. v. Tanner, 93 Okla. 284, 220 Pac. 655; St. L. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Miller, 117 Okla. 60, 245 Pac. 52; Muskogee E.T. Co. v. Tice, 116 Okla. 24, 243 Pac. 175; S.W. Mo. R......
-
Gwaltney v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co.
... ... & T. Ry. Co. v. Smith, 97 Okla ... 152, 223 P. 373; Muskogee, E. T. Co. v. Latty, 77 ... Okla. 156, 187 P. 491. (b) The evidence ... v. Bryan, 113 Okla. 39, 237 P. 613; ... Muskogee E. T. Co. v. Tanner, 93 Okla. 284, 220 P ... 655; St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Miller, 117 ... ...
-
Mo., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Smith
...chance has been discussed and decided many times by this court. A simple statement of the doctrine is made in Muskogee Electric Company v. Tanner, 93 Okla. 284, 220 P. 655, in which the authorities are discussed. The statement in that case is as follows:"The doctrine of last clear chance ap......