Porter v. Manes
| Decision Date | 24 November 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 38406,38406 |
| Citation | 1959 OK 239,347 P.2d 210 |
| Parties | George A. PORTER, Plaintiff in Error, v. M. C. MANES, Jr., Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. In a tort action, if reimbursement has been made to the injured party for the damages sustained from a source wholly independent of and not in behalf of the wrongdoer, such reimbursement can not inure to the benefit of the wrongdoer nor lessen the damages recoverable from him, and evidence of the reimbursement is inadmissible.
2. The judgment of the trial court entered on the verdict of the jury will not be reversed on appeal to this court for insufficiency of evidence if there is any evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict.
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Tulsa County; Lloyd McGuire, Judge.
This is an action to recover money judgment for damages to automobile. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
T. Austin Gavin, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.
Rucker, Tabor & Cox, Jean Charles Smith, Tulsa, for defendant in error.
This is an action to recover damages to an automobile occasioned by a collision with another automobile. Trial was had to a jury resulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. After motion for new trial was overruled, defendant perfected this appeal. The parties will be referred to by their trial court designation.
Plaintiff alleged he was driving east on a highway in Tulsa County, and defendant was driving west on the same highway; that defendant negligently made a left turn in front of him and collided into plaintiff's automobile; that as result of defendant's negligence, plaintiff's automobile was damaged and the reasonable cost of repair was $550.47.
Defendant answered by general denial and specifically denied he negligently made a left turn and that the collision was the result of any negligence on his part and alleged contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff in driving at a speed in excess of that which was at that time safe. By way of cross petition, defendant alleged plaintiff was guilty of negligence in failing to exercise the care and caution a reasonably prudent operator would have exercised and in failing to keep a proper look out for other vehicles as a reasonably prudent operator would have under like or similar conditions and in driving his automobile at a rate of speed in excess of that which was proper and safe under existing conditions and by reason of the negligence of the plaintiff, he was damaged in the sum of $105.
Plaintiff testified he was driving between 55 and 60 miles per hour on a four lane highway which was straight and in flat country; that defendant was approaching from the opposite direction; that defendant slowed up or might have stopped and then made a left turn without giving a signal; that he applied his brakes and cut to the right, skidded and slid into the side of defendant's car; that the front part of defendant's car had crossed over the center line of the two lanes of traffic on plaintiff's side when the cars collided; that oncoming traffic prevented plaintiff from going around defendant on the left side; that the resulting damages amounted to $550.47.
On cross examination plaintiff testified in answer to two questions by defendant's attorney that he had not been reimbursed for his damages and 'I got my car fixed, but I didn't collect my part--my expenses.' Objection was made after plaintiff answered the questions relating to reimbursement. The attorney for defendant then offered to prove that plaintiff, if permitted to answer under further examination, would testify he had been reimbursed for the damages he seeks to recover. The trial court denied the offer and admonished the jury to disregard the questions and answers relative thereto.
A highway patrolman testified he got to the scene about thirty minutes after the accident; that the point of impact was in plaintiff's lane of traffice; that skid marks of plaintiff's car commenced 57 feet from point of impact and he estimated the speed of plaintiff's car before the brakes were applied to be 60 Miles per hour.
Defendant testified he stopped at the intersection and looked for approaching traffic; two cars passed going east and the road looked clear so he started to make a turn; that he could see ahead approximately a half or a quarter of a mile; that he was nearly across the highway when he saw plaintif...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estrada v. Port City Properties Inc.
...fund maintained by the employer. Blythe v. University of Oklahoma, supra, (quoting 15 AM. JUR. Damages § 198 and § 201). See also, Porter v. Manes, 1959 OK 239, ¶ 11, 347 P.2d 210; Tidewater Associated Oil Co. v. Ale, 1942 OK 373, ¶ 13, 130 P.2d 991. 40. In addition to precluding such evide......
-
Gladstone v. BARTLESVILLE INDEPENDENT SCH. DISTRICT
...received by the plaintiff from any source other than the tortfeasor will not reduce the quantum of recoverable damages. Porter v. Manes, 1959 OK 239, 347 P.2d 210, 212; Huey v. Stephens, 1954 OK 222, 275 P.2d 254, 57. Gladstone claims that subdiv. 14 is disharmonious with the following prov......
-
Handy v. City of Lawton, 74064
...received by the plaintiff from any source other than the tortfeasor will not reduce the quantum of recoverable damages. Porter v. Manes, Okl., 347 P.2d 210, 212 (1959); Huey v. Stephens, Okl., 275 P.2d 254, 257 (1954). Huey was overruled on a different point of law in Hayward v. Ginn, Okl.,......
-
Hitchcock v. Weddle, 6770.
...is supported by any evidence reasonably tending to sustain the verdict and judgment, the same will be affirmed on appeal. Porter v. Manes, Okl., 347 P.2d 210; McClellan v. Palmer, 184 Okl. 216, 86 P.2d 325; Stanley v. Sweet, 202 Okl. 448, 214 P.2d 906; Jordan v. Johnson, supra, 315 P.2d 234......