Oil v. Laskey

• Decision Date: 28 May 1935
• Docket Number: Case Number: 24820
• Citation: 46 P.2d 484,1935 OK 608,173 Okla. 48
• Parties: PRAIRIE OIL & GAS CO. et al. v. LASKEY.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1935 OK 608

46 P.2d 484

173 Okla. 48

PRAIRIE OIL & GAS CO. et al. v. LASKEY.

Case Number: 24820

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: May 28, 1935

Syllabus

¶0 1. Evidence--Admissibility of Unofficial Maps.

An unofficial map when shown to be correct for the purposes offered, and offered in connection with the testimony of a witness, is admissible as an aid to the court and jury.

2. Negligence -- Concurring Negligence of Several--Liability.

Where independent acts or negligence of several combine to directly produce a single injury, each is responsible for the entire result.

Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; John B. Ogden, Assigned Judge.

Action by Anna Laskey against the Prairie Oil & Gas Company et al. Judgment for plaintiff against the Prairie Oil & Gas Company and Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Company, and said companies appeal. Affirmed.

Miley, Hoffman, Williams, France & Johnson and Harry D. Turner, for plaintiffs in error.

Twyford & Smith, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 Anna Laskey commenced this action in the district court of Oklahoma county, as plaintiff, against the Prairie Oil & Gas Company et al., as defendants, for damage to creek, trees, pasture and meadow by reason of the defendants permitting oil and salt water to escape from their leases. The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.

¶2 The facts are that the plaintiff owned the N.E. 1/4 of sec. 32, twp. 11, rge. 2 W., Oklahoma county, Okla., and the Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Company operated an oil and gas lease on the S.W. 1/4 of sec. 31, twp. 11, rge. 2 W., of said county, known as the Sudik lease, and other leases near the plaintiff's farm; and the Prairie Oil & Gas Company operated an oil and gas lease on the S.W. 1/4 of section 32, twp. 11, rge. 2 W., of said county, known as the Sigmon lease, and other leases near the plaintiff's farm. A well on the Sudik lease ran "wild" for about a week in the latter part of April, 1930; and a well on the Sigmon lease ran "wild" for several days during the month of May, 1930, which wells sprayed oil all over the area and onto plaintiff's land. Crutcho creek drained both the Sudik and Sigmon leases and ran through the plaintiff's farm. Crutcho creek on plaintiff's farm became polluted with oil and salt water and a number of trees on plaintiff's farm along said creek died by reason thereof. A demurrer to plaintiff's evidence was sustained as to all defendants except the defendants the Prairie Oil & Gas Company and Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Company. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff against said defendants for damage to stream and damage to trees, and the court rendered judgment in accordance therewith.

¶3 The defendants present all their assignments of error under two heads, to wit:

"(1) The court erred in admitting evidence on the part of the defendant in error over the objection of the plaintiffs in error.

"(2) The court erred in ruling that there was no misjoinder of causes of action, and in rendering judgment against plaintiffs in error jointly."

¶4 Under the first proposition, the defendants contend that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence a map prepared by the witness Ellison, a geologist, showing the ownership of the land and leases, Crutcho creek and its watershed, and elevation of the area in which the defendants' leases and plaintiff's farm are situated, for the reason that the elevations shown on said map were furnished by the Laughlin Elevation Service and that he (Ellison) did not run the elevation. At the beginning of the trial the parties stipulated and agreed as to the ownership of the leases operated by the defendants and the farm owned by the plaintiff. The witness Ellison, who prepared said map, testified that he was out to Crutcho creek on plaintiff's farm a few days prior to the time of the trial, and that he was out there three or four times before that. It is apparent that he had personal knowledge of the drainage of defendants' leases, and the land of the plaintiff, and he testified that the elevations as shown by said map are known to be correct, and are correct. It is apparent also that the map was used to explain in a general way where Crutcho creek began, and as an aid to the court and the jury in understanding the evidence of the witness relative to the general drainage of the leases of the defendants, and the watershed of and the course of Crutcho creek.

"It is a common practice in the courts to receive private or unofficial maps, diagrams, or sketches, for the purpose of giving a representation of objects and places which generally cannot otherwise be as conveniently shown or described by witnesses, and when proved to be correct or offered in connection with the testimony of a witness they are admissible as legitimate aids to the court or jury." 22 C. J. 910, par. 1114.

"An unofficial map, plan, plat or drawing indicating the location of objects under investigation, and shown by the testimony to be reasonably accurate, is properly admitted in evidence, in connection with the testimony, as an aid to the court and jury." 10 R. C. L. 1152.

"Whether or not it is proper to admit a map or diagram in any particular case is a question resting in the discretion of the trial court." 22 C. J. 912, 913.

¶5 The witness Ellison testified from his own personal knowledge relative to the drainage of the defendants' leases. There is ample evidence in the record, including the defendants' exhibit and the evidence of defendants' witnesses, without said map, to show that defendants' leases drained into Crutcho creek, then through plaintiff's farm. All the evidence with reference to the drainage of the defendants' leases shows that they drained into Crutcho creek, then through plaintiff's farm,...