CALES v. HARPOLE

Annotate this Case

CALES v. HARPOLE
1926 OK 639
248 P. 614
118 Okla. 298
Case Number: 16745
Decided: 07/27/1926
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

CALES
v.
HARPOLE.

Syllabus

¶0 Negligence--Elements--When a Question of Fact--Verdict Final--Automobile Collision. In an action for negligence based on speed of a truck at time of a collision the circumstances attending its operation at the time must be considered in determining the existence or nonexistence of primary negligence, and where the evidence of plaintiff is such that reasonable men might honestly differ as to the existence of negligence in the particular case, the determination thereof becomes a question of fact on which the verdict of a jury is conclusive in the absence of any errors of law in the instructions of the court.

McCollum & McCollum, for plaintiff in error.
Prentiss E. Rowe, for defendant in error.

LOGSDON, C.

¶1 Numerous errors are alleged in the petition in error, but in his brief defendant presents his argument for reversal under two propositions as follows:

"First. That there is no evidence showing negligence on the part of the defendant.

"Second. That, if the defendant was negligent, there is no causal connection between the negligence and injury complained of."

¶2 As both of these propositions raise the question of the sufficiency of plaintiff's evidence to authorize a submission of the case to the jury upon the question of primary negligence, both will be considered together, and such consideration involves a statement of the substance of plaintiff's evidence. Ben Harpole and O. C. Robertson were together in Harpole's car at the time of the accident, and their testimony is substantially the same upon the issue of primary negligence. They both say, in substance:

That when plaintiff drove off the east end of the bridge the truck was about 100 to 125 yards east of the bridge; that it was coming down a slight incline or grade; that plaintiff drove to the right of the road and stopped his car about 15 or 20 feet from the bridge for the truck to pass; that there was a ditch on each side of the road at this point and that the roadway was wide enough for the truck to have passed safely if driven with care; that when plaintiff stopped his car the truck was approaching down the incline at a speed of 25 or 30 miles an hour, but that its speed was reduced to about 20 miles at the time of the collision; that the left front wheel of the truck struck the left front hub of the plaintiff's car, tearing away the left front fender, left running board, left rear fender, and badly injuring the left rear wheel; that when the occupants of plaintiff's car got out of it on the right-hand side after the collision, it was standing so near the edge of the ditch, they had to step from the running board into the ditch.