Stinchcomb v. Holder

• Decision Date: 17 June 1941
• Docket Number: 30090.
• Citation: 116 P.2d 891,189 Okla. 315,1941 OK 224
• Parties: STINCHCOMB v. HOLDER.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

116 P.2d 891

189 Okla. 315, 1941 OK 224

STINCHCOMB v. HOLDER.

No. 30090.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

June 17, 1941

Rehearing Denied Sept. 16, 1941.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where instructions given the jury by the court in an action brought by a minor to recover damages for personal injuries are sufficiently clear and explicit and cover the applicable law in the case it is not error to refuse additional instructions which, if even technically correct, would merely amplify the instructions given.

2. In an action brought by a minor to recover damages for personal injuries an instruction which limits his recovery to damages actually sustained as the result of permanent injury and pain and suffering incident thereto is not erroneous on the ground of being too wide in scope.

3. Where after an examination of the entire record it does not appear that any substantial statutory or constitutional right has been infringed this court will not reverse a cause for error in instructions.

Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; Sam Hooker, Judge.

Action by R. L. Holder, a minor, by and through his mother and next friend, Louise Holder, against Lee Stinchcomb, to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained as a result of a collision between an automobile in which the plaintiff was riding as a guest and one which was owned and driven by the defendant. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

James C. Cheek and V. E. Stinchcomb, both of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Cruce Satterfield & Grigsby and Ben Franklin, all of Oklahoma City for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant in error, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, a minor, by his mother as next friend, instituted this action against the plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as defendant, to recover the sum of $10,000 as damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained as the result of a collision between an automobile in which the plaintiff was riding as a guest and one which was owned and driven by the defendant.

The answer of the defendant was a general denial, a plea of contributory negligence and unavoidable casualty. Trial was had to a jury. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and assessed his recovery at the sum of $300. Judgment followed the verdict. Motion for new trial was overruled and defendant has perfected this appeal.

The delict of the defendant is not here involved, the sole issue presented being whether the trial court erred in refusing to give two requested instructions and the giving of instruction No. 14.

The instructions so requested read as follow: "You are instructed that in this action the plaintiff is not entitled to recover for any loss of earning capacity sustained during his minority, that is, until he reaches the age of twenty-one years."

And "You are instructed that there is no evidence in this case to show any loss of earning capacity which will be suffered by the plaintiff after he reaches twenty-one years of age. And you will therefore not consider or allow any damages on that account."

The instruction to which exception is taken, being No. 14, reads as follows: "If within the purview of these instructions you find for the plaintiff then he is entitled to recover such sum as will compensate him for his physical impairment personal injuries, if any, which is a question of fact for you to determine under this evidence, and for pain and suffering, not to exceed in all the sum of $10,000.00."

The defendant contends that since it was shown by the evidence that the plaintiff was a minor seventeen years of age at the time of the accident and a member of his father's household therefore during the...