Y & Y Cab Co. v. Ford, 35288
| Decision Date | 10 January 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 35288,35288 |
| Parties | Y & Y CAB CO. v. FORD. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
A motion for new trial is addressed to the sound legal discretion of the trial court, and this court will indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness of the ruling of the trial judge sustaining such motion, and such an order will not be disturbed on appeal unless the record shows clearly that the court erred in a pure and unmixed question of law, or acted arbitrarily or capriciously.
Goodson & White, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
Paul Pugh and Francis G. Morgan, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.
This is an appeal by the Y & Y Cab Company from a judgment of the trial court sustaining a motion for a new trial.
The plaintiff alleged in her petition, that while she was a fare-paying passenger in one of defendant's cabs, from her home to the Leonhardt building in Oklahoma City; that in alighting from the cab she fell and sustained severe and permanent personal injuries as a result of the negligence of the defendant; as follows:
'1. In that, although the plaintiff was infirm and crippled, the driver of said cab failed and neglected to aid and assist her in alighting from the cab.
The answer of the defendant admits that plaintiff was a passenger as alleged. It further admits 'that on said day and date its driver was aware of the fact that plaintiff appeared to be lame or crippled at the time she was a passenger in said taxicab.'
At the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence, the trial court sustained the demurrer of the defendant to the evidence. The plaintiff, in due time, filed a motion for a new trial which was sustained for the following reason:
'Thereafter and on April 12, 1951, came on for hearing plaintiff's motion for new trial and both of the parties appearing by their respective counsel and the court being fully advised and upon consideration thereof finds that its sustaining of defendant's demurrer to the evidence as aforesaid was error in view of the fact that defendant in its answer admitted the allegations contained in paragraph 1 and 2 of plaintiff's petition and did further admit that it was aware of the fact that plaintiff appeared to be lame or crippled when she was a passenger in said taxicab and that by virtue thereof, plaintiff's said motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Propst v. Alexander, 83355
...v. McQuestion, see note 10, supra; Northwest Nat. Bank v. Boecking Const. Co., 361 P.2d 686, 688 (Okla.1961); Y & Y Cab Co. v. Ford, 207 Okla. 663, 252 P.2d 430, 431 (Okla.1953).12 Austin v. Cockings, see note 10, supra; Poteete v. M.F.A. Mut. Ins. Co., 527 P.2d 18, 22 (Okla.1974); Elmore v......
-
Austin v. Cockings
...shows clearly that the court erred on a pure and unmixed question of law, or acted arbitrarily or capriciously." Y & Y Cab Co. v. Ford, 207 Okla. 663, 252 P.2d 430, 431 (1953). See also Elmore, This Court has further held that where new trial is granted by the same judge who tried the case,......
-
Armstrong v. Chickasha Cotton Oil Co.
...should be much stronger where the error assigned is the granting of a new trial than where it is the refusal.' See also Y & Y Cab Co. v. Ford, Okl., 252 P.2d 430. And to the above, we might add the following quotation from Lee v. Baltimore Hotel Co., 345 Mo. 458, 136 S.W.2d 695, 699, 127 A.......
-
Hopkins v. Stoddard
...record clearly shows that the court erred in a pure and unmixed question of law, or acted arbitrarily or capriciously. Y & Y Cab Co. v. Ford, 207 Okl. 663, 252 P.2d 430 and many other A discussion of the evidence would not serve any useful purpose. We are of the opinion that the trial court......