Town of Canton, Blaine County v. Mansfield
| Decision Date | 10 February 1925 |
| Docket Number | 12082. |
| Citation | 233 P. 1071,108 Okla. 60,1925 OK 117 |
| Parties | TOWN OF CANTON, BLAINE COUNTY, v. MANSFIELD. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied March 10, 1925.
Syllabus by the Court.
It is the duty of a municipal corporation to use ordinary care and diligence in keeping its streets and sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition for the ordinary mode of travel and if it fails to do so, it is guilty of negligence, which will make it liable for injury resulting therefrom, provided the injured party exercises ordinary care to avoid injury.
In passing upon a demurrer to the evidence the court does not weigh the evidence. The demurrer admits every fact which the evidence in the slightest degree tends to prove and all inferences and conclusions that may be reasonably and logically drawn from the same, and where there is any conflict in the plaintiff's evidence that would make any part of it unfavorable to plaintiff or sustain the defense the court in passing upon such demurrer should consider such evidence withdrawn.
In a civil action, triable to a jury, where there is competent evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict of the jury, and no prejudicial errors of law are shown in the instructions of the court or its ruling on law questions presented during the trial, the verdict and finding of the jury will not be disturbed on appeal.
Appeal from District Court, Blaine County; Thomas A. Edwards, Judge.
Action by Jane Mansfield against the Town of Canton, Blaine County State of Oklahoma. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Simons McKnight & Simons, of Enid, for plaintiff in error.
Seymour Foose, and R. C. Brown, both of Watonga, and T. C. Knoop, of Canton, for defendant in error.
This action was instituted by Jane Mansfield, defendant in error, plaintiff below, against the town of Canton, Blaine county, plaintiff in error, defendant below. For convenience the parties will be referred to as they appeared in the lower court. Plaintiff brought said action to recover damages for personal injuries received while walking along one of the streets of said town of Canton. There was a trial to a jury and judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $500. From this judgment the defendant appeals.
The propositions urged on appeal by the defendant, which require consideration, may be generally stated: (1) That the facts do not establish liability on the part of the city; (2) that plaintiff's injuries resulted from any negligence of the defendants; (3) that the evidence was insufficient on which to base a verdict for plaintiff; (4) that the court erred in admitting certain incompetent evidence; (5) that the court erred in giving certain instructions to the jury and in refusing to give instructions requested by the defendant.
The material facts are substantially as follows: That the plaintiff on the 14th day of August, 1917, while walking along and upon a path on the east side of block 4 on Broadway, between the place where the sidewalk should have been and the main traveled part of the street, which said street runs north and south through the main business district of said town, and at such point, with due diligence and care and without any negligence on the part of plaintiff, that said plaintiff stumbled, slipped, and fell, and was therefore seriously injured.
Plaintiff alleges that the defendant had failed to maintain its streets in proper and safe condition, and had negligently permitted the said path to become rough and uneven, and to become worn, washed, and blown out, and that adjoining surface was grown up with weeds, grass, and thistles, same being rough and uneven, and that this condition had existed a long time prior to said injury. Plaintiff further alleges that defendant had negligently failed and neglected to provide any fit or suitable way for foot travel around said described point.
The defendant answered by a general denial, and also pleaded contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, in this, that the plaintiff had failed to use proper care in walking upon said highway, and that the injury was a result of her own carelessness and neglect and failure to use ordinary care.
Plaintiff filed a reply to the answer of defendant which was a general denial. At the close of plaintiff's case defendant demurred to the evidence of plaintiff, which was by the court overruled, and proper exceptions saved by the defendant.
Defendant makes the following specifications of error:
To continue reading
Request your trial