Richardson v. Butler, 34710
| Decision Date | 22 January 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 34710,34710 |
| Parties | RICHARDSON v. BUTLER. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Facts may be proved by circumstantial as well as by positive or direct evidence, and it is not necessary that the proof rise to that degree of certainty which will exclude every other reasonable conclusion than the one arrived at by the jury.
2. If a defendant, after its demurrer to the evidence of the plaintiff has been overruled, does not stand upon the demurrer but puts in its evidence, it waives the demurrer, and if it does not move for a directed verdict after the parties have finally rested, it cannot urge against an adverse verdict that the evidence was insufficient to establish a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff.
Bruce & Rowan, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
Wm. H. Lewis, of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.
On April 17, 1948, plaintiff (defendant in error here) filed his petition in this case. Issue was joined and a jury waived. A trial was had before a judge of another division, who entered judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $115.00. Defendant filed a motion for new trial which was sustained. Aside from the pleadings and judgment no part of that record is before us.
On December 8, 1948, plaintiff filed an amended petition. He alleged that on March 24, 1948, he took his Pontiac sedan to defendant, who was the owner and operator of Richardson Service Station, for the purpose of having his automobile washed, greased and oil drained and new oil put into crank case. That defendant failed and neglected to put in new oil, and by reason of his breach of duty the motor of plaintiff's auto was completely burned up because of lack of oil, and he alleged other damages all in the total sum of $453.65. Defendant filed an answer denying generally and specifically the charges of plaintiff's petition; alleging he did put in said car 5 quarts of oil from sealed cans; that if plaintiff's car was damaged it was due to some other causes and that the major portion of the damage was a result of plaintiff's own negligence, in continuing to drive the car after discovery that it was not getting proper lubrication.
Following a trial a six man jury returned a unanimous verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $375.25 with interest. Judgment was rendered on the verdict. From an order overruling his motion for new trial defendant appeals.
The petition in error contains fifteen assignments of error but in the brief they are summarized under two propositions.
Defendant says that he is not unmindful of the rule and decisions of this court holding that if there is any evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict of the jury this court will not reverse the case, but he says that in this case there is no competent evidence tending to support the verdict of the jury, and that the verdict was based on conjectures and conclusions.
Plaintiff's evidence was both factual and circumstantial. Evidence is uncontradicted that defendant operated a filling station in Oklahoma City; that plaintiff, a farmer, took his automobile to defendant's place of business and left it to be washed, to have the oil changed and have the auto lubricated; that defendant undertook, for a consideration paid, to perform that service; that plaintiff, in company with five other persons, started to drive to Taft, Oklahoma; that after driving approximately 130 miles and near the town of Boynton the pressure went down on the car, the oil gauge fell to zero and the car was hot and whatever was in the oil gauge was 'frying like grease.' Plaintiff drove to Boynton and had the oil drained. He kept a jar of the substance drained and it was put in evidence. Plaintiff put in new oil and continued the journey. After traveling about six miles a rod came through the block. Next day the car was towed back to Oklahoma City. There is no evidence disputing that of plaintiff that the car was in number one condition when delivered to defendant.
The evidence was conflicting as to the character of the substance drained from the motor. It is plaintiff's contention that it was a kerosene flush used to flush out motors, and that after the flushing the defendant forgot to put in new oil. Several witnesses, one a mechanic of 17 years' experience,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coe v. Esau
...proof need not rise to that degree of certainly as will exclude all conclusions inconsistent with defendant's liability. Richardson v. Butler, 206 Okl. 79, 240 P.2d 1058. All facts which the evidence tends to prove in the slightest degree, and all inferences and conclusions which may reason......
-
Drouillard v. Jensen Const. Co. of Oklahoma, Inc.
...389 P.2d 103 (Okl.1963).2 Tucker v. Colorado Indoor Trap Shoot, Inc., id.; Stout v. Taylor, 290 P.2d 761 (Okl.1955); Richardson v. Butler, 206 Okl. 79, 240 P.2d 1058 (1952).3 At that point in the trial a motion for directed verdict is treated the same as a demurrer to the evidence. See Benk......
-
Sarber v. Harris
...Educational and Cooperative Union of America v. Folsom, Okl., 325 P.2d 1053; Richardson v. Shaw, Okl., 313 P.2d 520; Richardson v. Butler, 206 Okl. 79, 240 P.2d 1058. We find no errors in the judgment of the trial court and the same is affirmed. In accordance with plaintiff's request, the C......
-
Friedman v. Hill
...of the evidence to sustain the judgment has not been presented for review. Richardson v. Shaw, Okl., 313 P.2d 520, and Richardson v. Butler, 206 Okl. 79, 240 P.2d 1058; Wright v. Linder, 196 Okl. 493, 166 P.2d The remainder of the propositions presented for review concern the action of the ......