A a Cab Operating Co. v. Drake

6 Citing cases

  1. Metropolitan Paving Company v. Puckett

    389 F.2d 1 (10th Cir. 1968)   Cited 6 times
    Applying Oklahoma law

    Where there is a question as to whether an intervening act is the proximate cause of an injury to the exclusion of a prior wrongful act alleged to have merely created a condition, the question is ordinarily one of fact for determination by a jury. A A Cab Operating Co. v. Drake, 1948, 200 Okla. 229, 192 P.2d 1004; Oklahoma City-Ada-Atoka Ry. Co. v. Crabtree, 1952, 207 Okla. 327, 249 P.2d 445. Since it was proper for the jury to consider whether Metropolitan was under a duty to provide warnings on the service or by-pass road and negligently failed to perform that duty, it was also proper, we conclude, to submit to the jury the question as to whether its negligence, if any, in failing to provide such warning was a proximate cause of Miss Puckett's injury.

  2. North v. Williams

    366 P.2d 406 (Okla. 1961)   Cited 3 times

    This Court, on more than one occasion, has stated that a carrier owes a passenger the highest degree of care. See Oklahoma Ry. Co. et al. v. Clapp, Okla., 258 P.2d 638 and A A Cab Operating Co. v. Drake, 200 Okla. 229, 192 P.2d 1004. As indicated by the matter above quoted, some courts have in effect concluded that the slightest negligence on the part of a carrier constitutes a breach of the carrier's duty to exercise the highest degree of care in transporting a passenger.

  3. Fruechting v. Gilley

    259 P.2d 530 (Okla. 1953)   Cited 6 times

    There is no evidence to indicate that defendants were forced or coerced into filing the tank of Schroff's car with butane. In A A Cab Operating Co. v. Drake, 200 Okla. 229, 192 P.2d 1004, 1005, it was said in the fourth syllabus: "Where an intervening cause is relied upon as a defense in an action for personal injury due to negligence, the issue whether the alleged cause other than the negligent act or omission of defendant proximately caused the injury is a question of fact for the jury's determination."

  4. Oklahoma Ry. Co. v. Jones

    250 P.2d 472 (Okla. 1952)   Cited 4 times
    In Oklahoma Ry. Co. v. Jones, 207 Okla. 476, 250 P.2d 472, there was testimony of another passenger that the driver "slammed on his brakes" in bringing the bus to a sudden stop.

    The bus driver knew that plaintiff had not gone to his seat, and so testified, and in such case we think due care required him to not subject plaintiff to danger by suddenly jerking and stopping the bus. In A A Cab Operating Co. v. Drake, 200 Okla. 229, 192 P.2d 1004, we said that it was only where the facts were such that all reasonable men must draw the same conclusion that the question of negligence becomes one of law for the court, and that in the absence of negligence on defendant's part plaintiff could not recover damages. We further said that the proximate cause of injury is ordinarily a question for the jury.

  5. Barker v. General Petroleum Corp

    232 P.2d 390 (Ariz. 1951)   Cited 21 times

    Negligence may consist of the failure to use reasonable care, and what is or is not negligence is a question for the jury, especially where the standard or such duty is not fixed but variable. City of Stilwell v. Bone, 195 Okla. 325, 157 P.2d 459; A A Cab Operating Co. v. Drake, 200 Okla. 229, 192 P.2d 1004."

  6. Hughes v. Shanafelt

    218 P.2d 350 (Okla. 1950)   Cited 8 times

    Negligence may consist of the failure to use reasonable care, and what is or is not negligence is a question for the jury, especially where the standard of such duty is not fixed but variable. City of Stilwell v. Bone, 195 Okla. 325, 157 P.2d 459; A. A. Cab Operating Co. v. Drake, 200 Okla. 229, 192 P.2d 1004. Defendant further contends the trial court erred in giving instructions Nos. 2 and 7. By instruction No. 2 the trial court defined ordinary care.