Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. Graham
| Decision Date | 04 February 1941 |
| Docket Number | 29682. |
| Citation | 111 P.2d 173,188 Okla. 521,1941 OK 48 |
| Parties | OKLAHOMA NATURAL GAS CO. v. GRAHAM. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Feb. 25, 1941.
Application for Leave to File Second Petition for Rehearing Denied March 18, 1941.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. An action which sounds in tort is controlled by the rules applicable in actions ex delicto rather than those in actions ex contractu.
2. Where expert testimony is required to prove the nature, cause and extent of a disability alleged to have been sustained in consequence of a negligent act the ultimate conclusion to be reached as well as the question of proximate cause is for the trier of the facts.
3. Where a jury is waived in an action of legal cognizance, the findings of the court are entitled to the same weight and consideration that would be given to a verdict by a jury, and if there is any evidence, including any reasonable inferences, tending to support the findings the Supreme Court will not reverse for insufficient evidence. Atlantic Refining Co. v. Fulsom, 185 Okl. 357, 91 P.2d 758.
Appeal from District Court, Creek County; C. O. Beaver, Judge.
Action by Sadie Graham against the Oklahoma Natural Gas Company for damages to plaintiff's health as alleged result of defendant's wrongful disconnection of gas service. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Underwood Canterbury, Pinson & Lupardus, of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.
Speakman & Speakman, of Sapulpa, 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 to health alleged to have been sustained as the result of wrongful disconnection of gas service.
The plaintiff alleged, in substance, that during her absence from home the defendant had wrongfully disconnected her gas service; that due to the lack of a telephone in the house she had to expose herself to cold and rain in order to report the breach of service to the defendant and that in an endeavor to obtain a restoration of her service she had been compelled to leave the premises a number of times and that as a result of such exposure and of having to remain in an unheated house several hours she contracted a severe cold which resulted in injury to her general health and that although she had been damaged in an amount in excess of $3,000 that she waived any such excess in order to prevent a removal of the cause to the federal courts. Motion to strike certain portions of the plaintiff's petition was overruled as was likewise a general demurrer filed to said petition. The defendant saved proper exceptions in each instance, the defendant thereupon answered with a general denial and a plea of contributory negligence.
The parties waived a jury and tried the cause to the court. The defendant requested certain findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court made its own independent findings of fact and conclusions of law and found, in substance, that the defendant had been negligent in disconnecting the gas service and that this was the proximate cause of plaintiff's resulting disability. In accordance with said findings the court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff and assessed her recovery at the sum of $500. Motion for new trial was overruled and defendant has perfected this appeal.
The defendant sets up three propositions in its brief but confines its discussion almost entirely to the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment of the trial court and for this reason we will only discuss this contention, for reasons hereinafter appearing the other contentions with reference to error in overruling the motion to strike and the demurrer to the petition being disposed of thereby. The defendant contends that though the facts in the case at bar are in many respects similar to those involved in Oklahoma...
To continue reading
Request your trial