Pittsburg Cnty. Ry. Co. v. Hasty
Decision Date | 28 October 1924 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 14422 |
Citation | 233 P. 218,1924 OK 990,106 Okla. 65 |
Parties | PITTSBURG COUNTY RY. CO. v. HASTY. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Negligence--Proximate Cause of Injury--Burden of Proof.
Where recovery is sought by the plaintiff who alleges the damage or injury was caused by the negligence of the defendant, the burden is upon the plaintiff to prove the negligence of the defendant, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the injury.
2. Street Railroads--Action for Injuries in Collision with Automobile--Traffic Violation by Both Parties--Erroneous Instruction. Where there is testimony tending to prove that both plaintiff and defendant were operating an automobile and street car respectively in violation of a city ordinance, it is error to charge the jury that if they find from the evidence the defendant was operating its street car in violation of the ordinance, such violation constituted prima facie negligence, and the burden was upon the defendant to prove its negligence was not the proximate cause of the injury.
3. Negligence--Proximate Cause of Injury--Burden of Proof.
The question what is the proximate cause of an injury is ordinarily a question for the jury, but the burden is always upon the plaintiff in an action for personal injuries to show the negligence charged was the proximate cause of the injury.
4. Appeal and Error--Prejudicial Error--Inconsistent Instructions.
The instructions must always be considered as a whole, but they must be consistent and harmonious, and where two instructions are given containing inconsistent or conflicting propositions, tending to confuse the jury, the cause will be reversed for the reason that the court is unable to determine which instruction the jury followed and which they ignored.
5. Appeal and Error--Objections Below--Insufficiency of Evidence.
Where the defendant has failed to demur to the evidence or request a directed verdict, the question whether there is sufficient evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict is not presented for review on plaintiff's motion for a new trial, and the evidence cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court on appeal.
Monk & McSherry, for plaintiff in error.
I. S. Arnote, for defendant in error.
¶1 This action was filed in the district court of Pittsburg county, by the defendant in error, wherein he seeks to recover judgment for loss or destruction of an automobile, and the personal injuries sustained because of the acts of negligence of the plaintiff in error, defendant below, and for convenience the parties will be herein designated as they appeared in the trial court. Plaintiff alleges in his petition that defendant operates a street railway line in Pittsburg county, and particularly through the city of McAlester, in said county, and while plaintiff was driving his automobile across the defendant's tracks at Second and Electric avenue in the city of McAlester, the defendant's employes carelessly and negligently ran a street car at a rate of speed of 25 miles per hour into and upon the plaintiff's automobile, wrecking the same, and injuring plaintiff; that defendants servants failed to sound any signal when approaching the said crossing, and failed to slow down for the crossing, and by reason of the negligence of the defendant, the plaintiff sustained the injuries complained of, and prays judgment. Plaintiff sets forth the ordinance of the city of McAlester governing the movement of automobiles and street cars, and these ordinances provide that all motor vehicles and street cars, "when approaching a crossing, or rounding a curve or corner on a public street, shall sound a signal." The ordinance provides for a speed of 8, 10, and 20 miles per hour in certain specified districts, and as it appears the accident occurred in the district permitting a speed of 20 miles per hour it will be unnecessary to set out the ordinance at length. Defendant answered by general denial and for further answer, in the second paragraph, defendant specifically denies primary negligence on the part of the defendant, by alleging:
"That if the plaintiff and said automobile were damaged by reason of being so struck, the striking of said automobile and the damage to same and to the plaintiff in person were caused solely by the negligence of the plaintiff in that the plaintiff approached the track of the defendant driving his car at a high rate of speed upon a down grade and went upon the track of the defendant without first looking or listening to determine whether a car of the defendant was approaching said crossing; that plaintiff knew that defendant's cars were using said track at said crossing and running frequently cars thereon and knew or ought to have known that at the rate of speed at which he approached the crossing of defendant's track he could not stop his automobile in time to avoid a collision with defendant's car if defendant's car should be approaching or at said crossing as he, the plaintiff, went upon the same; that knowing these facts the plaintiff carelessly and negligently drove his automobile upon the defendant's tracks in such a way that he was unable after he had seen the approaching car of the defendant to stop his car and avoid a collision."
¶2 The third and fourth paragraphs of defendant's answer are in the following words and figures:
¶3 After reply filed the cause was tried to a jury, and a verdict returned for the plaintiff, and from the judgment of the court the defendant appeals, and assigns the following as error: First, the trial court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial; second, the trial court erred in giving to the jury in his general charge, instructions numbered 5, 7, 13, 15, 16, 18 and 21; third, the trial court erred in refusing to give to the jury defendant's requested instructions numbered 11, 12, and 13; fourth, and fifth, that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law, that the verdict of the jury is contrary to and in disregard of the court's instructions.
¶4 The first objection urged by defendant, is to the giving of general instruction No. 5, in the following words:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Cushing v. Buckles
...are unable to tell, or course, whether the jury followed the correct or the incorrect rule furnished by the court. Pittsburg Co. Ry. Co. v. Hasty, 106 Okla. 65, 233 P. 218; Bailey v. Citizens Bank of Meeker, 118 Okla. 118, 247 P. 42; Watkins v. Huff, 101 Okla. 5, 222 P. 693; Gourley v. Jack......
-
Watson v. Phillips
...& Merchants' Bank, 104 Okla. 158 230 P. 881; Oklahoma Union Ry. Co. v. Mitchell, 105 Okla. 152, 231 P. 1062; Pittsburg Co. Ry. Co. v. Hasty, 106 Okla. 65, 233 P. 218; Kallmeyer v. Garland, 100 Okla. 225, 229 P. 166. ¶6 The defendants admitted a contract was made with the plaintiff, but did ......
-
Winn v. Corey
...cause of her injury. In support of this proposition they cite and rely on the rule laid down by this court in Pittsburg County Railway Co. v. Hasty, 106 Okla. 65, 233 P. 218. That case was much like the case at bar. In that case the trial court instructed the jury that if they found that th......
-
Younger v. Blanchard Hdwe. Co.
...condition if no one of several different principles of law presented to a jury did not contain the true law. Pittsburg Co. Railway Co. v. Hasty, 106 Okla. 65, 233 P. 218; Cosden Pipe Line Co. v. Berry, 87 Okla. 237, 210 P. 141. ¶20 Counsel for plaintiff directs our attention to Schofield v.......