St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Clark
Decision Date | 12 May 1914 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 2902 |
Citation | 142 P. 396,1914 OK 236,42 Okla. 638 |
Parties | ST. LOUIS & S. F. R. CO. v. CLARK. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. APPEAL AND ERROR--Law of the Case--Decision on Prior Appeal. The decisions on all questions of law made by an appellate court on appeal become the law of that particular case, both for the trial court and this court on a second hearing, providing the facts presented in the second hearing, on the point formerly decided, are substantially the same as in the first hearing.
2. SAME. The facts in the second hearing of this case, on the points decided in the former appeal, are substantially the same as in the first trial; there was not sufficient difference to take the case out of the law announced in the first appeal.
3. NEGLIGENCE--"Last Clear Chance." The doctrine of "last clear chance" is recognized by the courts as an exception to the general rule that the contributory negligence of the person injured will bar a recovery, without reference to the degree of negligence on his part; and under this exception to the rule the injured person may recover damages for an injury resulting from the negligence of the defendant, although the negligence of the injured person exposed him to the danger of the injury sustained, if the injury was more immediately caused by the want of care, on the defendant's part, to avoid the injury, after discovering the peril of the injured person.
4. RAILROADS--Crossing Accident--Sufficiency of Evidence--Negligence. The evidence in this case was sufficient to take the case to the jury on the question of defendant's negligence and plaintiff's contributory negligence. See former opinion, 24 Okla. 764, 108 P. 361, 2 syllabus.
Error from District Court, Comanche County; J. T. Johnson, Judge.
Action by James H. Clark against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company, a corporation. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed and remanded.
See, also, 24 Okla. 764, 108 P. 361.
W. F. Evans and R. A. Kleinschmidt, for plaintiff in error
J. L. Hamon and Charles Mitschrich, for defendant in error
¶1 This is an action to recover damages occasioned by the collision of a train with defendant in error's wagon at a railroad crossing in the town of Cache. The cause arose and was tried first in the district court of Oklahoma Territory, at which trial the judge held that under the evidence the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. Clark, the plaintiff below, prosecuted, an appeal to the Territorial Supreme Court, where the same was pending on a petition for rehearing at the time of statehood, and this court, in an opinion by Mr. Justice Kane, reported in 24 Okla. 764, 108 P. 361, reversed the action of the trial court in sustaining a demurrer to plaintiff's evidence, and remanded the cause for a new trial. Two points were urged on the former appeal, and were disposed of by the court: (1) Was plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence? and (2), if he was, is he entitled to the benefit of the doctrine of the last clear chance? Both these points are argued here again, together with certain other minor propositions incidental to them. In the former opinion the court held, briefly stated, that under the evidence in the case the trial court had no right to say, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff's negligence prevented a recovery, and on the second point the court held that under the evidence the humanitarian rule, perhaps more generally referred to as the doctrine of "the last clear chance," was not involved and had no application. The statement of the case and all the evidence in the former opinion is so comprehensive and full of details that we do not consider it necessary to repeat them here. There was some difference in the testimony in the last trial from that shown in the first, and this we will notice later on, but these differences, in our judgment, are not of sufficient consequence to require us to go again into a detailed analysis of the evidence presented.
¶2 1. As to whether or not plaintiff's act in driving upon the railroad crossing was negligent, so as to prevent a recovery, the court held in the former opinion as follows in the syllabus:
¶3 2. As to the applicability of the doctrine of the last clear chance the court held in the body of the opinion as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carpenter v. Kurn
...157 S.W.2d 213 348 Mo. 1132 Mary Carpenter v. James M. Kurn and John G. Lonsdale, Trustees of St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company, Debtor, Appellants No. 37705Supreme Court of MissouriDecember 16, 1941 ... Appeal ... from Henry ... Smithers v. Barker, 111 S.W.2d 47; Poague v ... Kurn, 140 S.W.2d 13; Elkin v. St. L. Pub. Serv ... Co., 335 Mo. 951, 74 S.W.2d 600; Clark v. Atchison, ... T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 319 Mo. 865, 6 S.W.2d 954; ... Stanton v. Jones, 332 Mo. 631, 59 S.W.2d 648; ... Smith v. Wells, 326 Mo. 525, ... ...
-
Sand Springs Ry. Co. v. Mcwilliams
...of the last clear chance, and cites in support thereof: Buss v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 77 Okla. 80, 186 P. 729; St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Clark, 42 Okla. 638, 142 P. 396; A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Baker, 21 Okla. 51, 95 P. 433; Denver City Tramway Co. v. Cobb, 164 F. 41; A., T. & S. F. ......
-
St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Bryan
...Baker, 21 Okla. 51, 95 P. 433, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 825; Oklahoma City Ry. Co. v. Barkett, 30 Okla. 28, 118 P. 350; St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Clark, 42 Okla. 638, 142 P. 396; Lusk v. Haley, 75 Okla. 206, 181 P. 727; Thrasher et al. v. St. L. & S. F. Ry Co., 86 Okla. 88, 206 P. 212. And where......
-
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Howard
...his peril, use ordinary care to avoid doing him injury.' A., T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Miles, 69 Okla. 138, 170 P. 896; A., T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Clark, 42 Okla. 638, 142 P. 396." ¶13 The case of Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Phillips, supra, discusses and disposes of every question involved in......