Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. Smith
| Decision Date | 18 November 1941 |
| Docket Number | 30140. |
| Citation | 119 P.2d 844,189 Okla. 690,1941 OK 387 |
| Parties | OKLAHOMA NATURAL GAS CO. v. SMITH. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Dec. 16, 1941.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained as the result of a collision with a hazard constructed and maintained in a public highway as an incident to the operation of a gas line in said highway evidence of the existence of such hazard and that it was the property of the company operating said gas line and of an attempt by the driver of a truck to avoid striking such hazard and of his failure to do so and of the consequent collision therewith is neither conjectural nor speculative.
2. The duty which a gas company, using the public highway in the operation of its business, owes to travelers on said highway is to construct and maintain its lines where it traverses such highway in such a manner as to prevent them becoming a hazard to travelers on the highway.
Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; Frank P. Douglass Judge.
Action by Edmond E. (Pete) Smith against the Oklahoma Natural Gas Company to recover for personal injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiff as result of defendant's alleged negligence in permitting a gate stem on one of its gas lines to remain exposed as a traffic hazard in a public highway. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Underwood Canterbury, Pinson & Lupardus, of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.
R. F Barry, of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.
This action was instituted by the defendant in error, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, against the plaintiff in error hereinafter referred to as defendant, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained as the result of the negligence of defendant in permitting a gate stem on one of its gas lines to remain exposed as a traffic hazard in a public highway.
The plaintiff alleged, in substance, in his petition the corporate character and the nature of the business of the defendant, the omission of defendant to exercise due care in the maintenance and construction of a gate stem on one of its gas lines which was located in a public highway and the exposure of such gate stem so as to constitute the same a traffic hazard; a puncture by said exposed gate stem of a tire upon a pickup truck in which plaintiff was riding as a passenger and the consequent injury to the plaintiff by being thrown suddenly and violently against parts of said truck as the result of the puncture of the tire and the loss of control of the truck by its driver.
The answer of the defendant admitted its corporate character and the nature of its business but denied all other allegations in the petition of the plaintiff and plead contributory negligence of the driver as the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries, if any.
Under the issues thus framed trial was had to a jury. The defendant demurred to the evidence of the plaintiff and moved for directed verdict and at the close of all of the evidence and saved proper exceptions to the rulings of the court thereon, but took no exceptions to any of the instructions given to the jury. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and assessed his recovery at the sum of $750.
The defendant contends first that the evidence was merely sufficient to give rise to conjecture or speculation as to the cause of the accident and therefore was insufficient to sustain the verdict and the judgment based thereon. In support of this contention we are cited to Jafek v Public Service Co. of Oklahoma, 183 Okl. 32, 79 P.2d 813; Mid-Continent Pet. Corp. v. Miller, 183 Okl. 27, 79 P.2d 804; Dixon v. Gaso Pump & Burner Mfg. Co. 183 Okl. 249, 80 P.2d 678; Covington Coal Products Co. v. Stogner, 181 Okl. 35, 72 P.2d 491; Highway Const. Co. v. Shue, 173 Okl. 456, 49 P.2d 203; Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Howery, 169 Okl. 408, 37 P.2d 303, and numerous other cases which are authority for the rule that a verdict and judgment based upon speculation, surmise and conjecture is not permissible. Such cases, however, have no application to the situation presented here, since there was substantially no conflict in the evidence concerning what took place. The driver of the truck testified that just prior to the occurrence of the "blow-out" he observed an object in the highway and sought to avoid striking the same but without success and that immediately thereafter a tire, as the result of the puncture or as he termed it "blow-out" collapsed and the car momentarily went out of control and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial