DocketNumber: No. 30283.
Citation Numbers: 121 P.2d 581, 190 Okla. 120
Judges: Welch, Corn, Osborn, Bayless, Gibson, Hurst, Arnold, Riley, Davison
Filed Date: 1/27/1942
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
The parties occupy the same positions in this court as they *Page 121 did in the trial court, and will be referred to as plaintiff and defendant. The action was instituted by the plaintiff to recover damages for personal injuries which she had sustained as the result of a fall down a stairway in defendant's place of business. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent in permitting waste paper to accumulate and remain on a stairway, and that this was the proximate cause of her fall and resulting injury. The defendant denied all liability and averred that plaintiff had sustained her injuries either as the result of her own negligence or else as a consequence of an unavoidable casualty and misfortune. Trial was had to a jury. The fall and resulting injury were not denied. The issue in controversy was whether the defendant was guilty of any primary negligence. The evidence on this point was confined to the testimony of plaintiff and was, in effect, that plaintiff while descending a stairway in defendant's place of business had reached the fourth or fifth step from the bottom when she slipped and fell, and that after her fall she looked back and observed some strips of waste paper on the stairway at about the point where she first slipped and that she attributed her fall to the presence of such paper on the stairway. There was no evidence whatsoever to show that the defendant either knew of the presence of such paper on the stairway or that it had been thereon for sufficient length of time to justify the inference that the defendant should have known of its presence. Demurrer of defendant to the evidence of plaintiff was overruled, however, and its motion for directed verdict was likewise denied. The court thereupon undertook to instruct the jury upon the legal theories of the respective litigants. The plaintiff neither took nor saved any direct exceptions to any of the instructions so given, but was by the court allowed an exception to one instruction which was given upon request of the defendant. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. Motion for new trial, which made no reference to any error in the instructions, was overruled. The plaintiff then appealed the cause to this court and in the petition in error here has failed likewise to make any reference to the sufficiency of the instructions given by the trial court.
The plaintiff in her brief, however, urges as grounds for reversal of the judgment below the failure of the trial court to properly instruct the jury upon the tenable legal theories of the respective litigants and complains particularly of error in three instructions given by the trial court. The premise for the contentions so made rests upon the rule which requires a court upon its own initiative to instruct the jury upon the tenable legal theories of the respective litigants and makes the failure so to do fundamental error as enunciated in Riser v. Herr,
The record here submitted presents no reversible error; therefore, the judgment of the trial court should be, and the same is, in all respects affirmed.
WELCH, C. J., CORN, V. C. J., and OSBORN, BAYLESS, GIBSON, HURST, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur. RILEY and DAVISON, JJ., absent.
Lacy v. Wozencraft , 188 Okla. 19 ( 1940 )
Riser v. Herr , 187 Okla. 211 ( 1940 )
Scott v. Folsom Morris Coal Min. Co. , 138 Okla. 147 ( 1929 )
Lakey v. North McAlester Coal Co. , 98 Okla. 130 ( 1924 )
Owen v. Kitterman , 178 Okla. 483 ( 1936 )