N.Y. Plate Glass Ins. Co. v. Katz
| Decision Date | 12 October 1915 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 5519 |
| Citation | 1915 OK 783,51 Okla. 713,152 P. 353 |
| Parties | NEW YORK PLATE GLASS INS. CO. v. KATZ. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 NEGLIGENCE--Direction of Verdict--Evidence. In a suit based on negligence, the court should submit the case to the jury, unless the evidence produced, together with all reasonable deductions and inferences to be fairly drawn therefrom, entirely fails to show negligence upon the part of defendant. If the evidence fails entirely to show negligence, then the court should instruct a verdict in favor of defendant.
Error from County Court, Creek County; Warren H. Brown, Judge.
Action by the New York Plate Glass Insurance Company against A. J. Katz. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Burke & Harrison, for plaintiff in error.
¶1 This suit was brought by the New York Plate Glass Insurance Company, as plaintiff below, against A. J. Katz, as defendant. Plaintiff alleged that it was in the business of insuring plate glass, and had insured certain windows belonging to a man named Brin, which windows were in a store building occupied by defendant, Katz; that the glass was broken and replaced by plaintiff at a cost of $ 110; that the breaking of the glass was caused by the negligence and want of care of defendant, Katz; that the cause of action of Brin against Katz had been transferred to plaintiff; and that it was subrogated to the rights of Brin. Defendant answered by general denial. There was a trial of the issues thus formed to a jury, and at the conclusion of the evidence, the court instructed the jury to find a verdict for defendant.
¶2 The only point urged for reversal of the case is leveled at the action of the court in directing the jury to find for defendant, which was, in effect, a holding by the court that there was no evidence reasonably tending to show negligence upon the part of defendant. Of course it goes without saying, that if there was any evidence in the case reasonably tending to support the allegation that the glass was broken and thus destroyed because of the negligence of defendant, the court should have submitted the same to the jury, and would therefore have been in error in directing a verdict. In other words, it is only where the evidence produced, together with all reasonable deductions and inferences fairly deducible therefrom, entirely fails to show any negligence upon the part of defendant that the court would be justified in instructing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hutchison v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
... ... Eldridge, 46 N.E. 638; ... Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Pollard, 94 Va. 146, 26 ... S.W. 421; Stock v ... [ New York ... Plate Glass Ins. Co. v. Katz, 51 Okla. 713, 152 P. 353.] ... ...
-
Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Hunter
... ... Co. v. Nail, 156 Okla. 294, 10 P.2d 668; New York Plate Glass Ins. Co. v. Katz, 51 Okla. 713, 152 P. 353. It is ... ...
-
Mo., K. & T. R. Co. v. Wolf
...be drawn therefrom, the case is one for the jury. Littlejohn v. Midland Valley R. Co., 47 Okla. 204, 148 P. 120; New York Plate Glass Ins. Co. v. Katz, 51 Okla. 713, 152 P. 353; C., R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Felder, 56 Okla. 220. 155 P. 529; C., R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Schands, 57 Okla. 688, 157 P.......
-
Gypsy Oil Co. v. Ginn
...part, it becomes a question of law for the court. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Barton, 59 Okla. 109, 159 P. 250; N.Y. Plate Glass Ins. Co. v. Katz, 51 Okla. 713, 152 P. 353; Midland Valley R. R. Co. v. Graney, 77 Okla. 54, 185 P. 1088; Okla. Union R. R. Co. v. Feebeck, No. 11738, 88 Okla. 212,......