Patterson v. Seals
| Decision Date | 21 September 1915 |
| Docket Number | 4861. |
| Citation | 151 P. 591,51 Okla. 347,1915 OK 654 |
| Parties | PATTERSON ET AL. v. SEALS. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
In an action for damages, predicated upon negligence, the burden is upon the plaintiff to show by a preponderance of the evidence that there is causal connection between the negligence averred and the injury suffered.
In an action for recovery of damages for negligence, if it be shown by the evidence there was negligence, there can be no recovery, unless the evidence, by a preponderance, also shows causal connection between the negligence proved and the damages sustained.
In an action for damages for negligence, if the evidence fails to show causal connection between the negligence averred and the damages suffered, the court, upon proper request, should direct a verdict for the defendant.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 1. Error from District Court Washington County; R. H. Hudson, Judge.
Action by J. W. Seals against W. C. Patterson, Jr., and others. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Reversed, with instructions.
M. E Michaelson, of Bartlesville, for plaintiffs in error.
B. A Lewis, of Dewey, for defendant in error.
This action was brought by defendant in error against plaintiffs in error to recover damages for the destruction of property contained in a barn under a lease held by defendant in error by reason of the destruction of the barn and its contents by fire.
The material evidence discloses that there was an engine and boiler used in drilling for oil, located within 100 feet of the barn destroyed, which had within it the property destroyed, including a lot of hay, horses, harness, etc., all of the value of from $1,100 to $1,500, which boiler and engine were in operation the night of the fire until 10 o'clock, at which time the fire in the boiler was turned out, but was not in operation about an hour and a half immediately prior to the discovery of the barn's being on fire; that the fuel used in firing said engine was gas; that the smokestack of said engine was not equipped with a spark arrester; that shortly after the barn was discovered to be on fire, it was totally destroyed, with its contents; that a strong wind was blowing from the direction of the engine and boiler toward the barn; that some days after the fire sparks from said engine were seen to issue therefrom and to land on the site of the former barn, but there was no evidence that sparks had been seen to issue from the smokestack used in connection with said engine and boiler prior to the burning of said barn; that two or three days prior to the burning of said barn the parties operating said engine and boiler had been seen throwing some small pieces of wood into the furnace of said boiler and engine, and that after the fire an examination disclosed that there were some ashes under the boiler; that under certain circumstances sparks would emit from an engine fired by gas, and fly from 100 to 150 feet. There was no direct evidence that an engine burning gas, in order to be properly equipped, would have to have a spark arrester. There was evidence tending to show that defendant in error objected to the location of the engine and boiler so near to the barn, which evidence is denied by plaintiff in error, who had a lease on the land upon which said boiler and engine were located, for the purpose of drilling for oil.
The case was tried to a jury, and a verdict returned in favor of defendant in error for $1,100. Plaintiff in error, within the time allowed by law, filed a motion for new trial, which was overruled, to which action of the court the defendant duly excepted. Judgment was rendered on the verdict, from which judgment this appeal is prosecuted.
If it be admitted that the failure to have such spark arrester was negligence, the evidence does not show any causal connection between such negligence and the cause of the fire which destroyed said barn. There is no evidence reasonably tending to show that it was negligence to locate the boiler and engine where located, since the plaintiff in error had a lease upon the lands upon which the same were located; and consequently said location, notwithstanding the defendant in error might have objected to the same, was not proof of negligence, causally connected with the fire, which caused the loss for which this action is brought.
There is no direct evidence as to how the fire originated. Usually in case of a fire direct evidence of its origin cannot be had, and resort must be had to circumstantial evidence. Of course, circumstantial evidence is sufficient, where it reasonably tends to show that the wrong complained of was the result of actionable negligence by the party complained of. In Swenson v. Erlandson et al., 86 Minn. 263, 90 N.W. 534, it is said:
To continue reading
Request your trial