From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Oklahoma City Ry. Co. v. Diab

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Sep 26, 1911
118 P. 351 (Okla. 1911)

Opinion

No. 1138

Opinion Filed September 26, 1911.

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE — Last Clear Chance. The syllabus is the same as in Oklahoma City Railway Company v. Saida Barkett, ante, 118 P. 350, just decided.

(Syllabus by Ames, C.)

Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; George W. Clark, Judge.

Action by Rosa Diab against the Oklahoma City Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed and remanded.

Shartel, Keaton Wells, for plaintiff in error.

Wm. L. McCann and S. A. Byers, for defendant in error.


This case arises out of the same accident as the Saida Barkett case, which has just been decided, Oklahoma City Railway Company v. Barkett, ante, 118 P. 350. The cases were tried together in the lower court, although separate verdicts were rendered, and the cases have been briefed and argued orally together in this court.

The instruction complained of in this case is identical with the instruction complained of in the Barkett case, and for the reasons stated in the opinion in that case this should also be reversed and remanded.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

All the Justices concur.


Summaries of

Oklahoma City Ry. Co. v. Diab

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Sep 26, 1911
118 P. 351 (Okla. 1911)
Case details for

Oklahoma City Ry. Co. v. Diab

Case Details

Full title:OKLAHOMA CITY RY. CO. v. DIAB

Court:Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date published: Sep 26, 1911

Citations

118 P. 351 (Okla. 1911)
118 P. 351

Citing Cases

Simpson v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.

d, 141 Ind. 92, 40 N.E. 270; Heaton v. Eldridge, 46 N.E. 638; Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Pollard, 94 Va.…

Metropolitan Ry. Co. v. Fonville

In other words, it was held that the doctrine of "last clear chance" did not intervene to protect a plaintiff…