Bowring v. Denco Bus Lines, Inc.

12 Citing cases

  1. Richardson v. United States

    248 F. Supp. 99 (E.D. Okla. 1965)   Cited 3 times

    (5) That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply to the situations herein, as claimed by plaintiffs, since plaintiffs plead and proved specific acts of negligence by defendant causing the deaths and injuries, and inasmuch as the necessary element of exclusive control by the defendant does not exist herein since drowning, the cause of the deaths, involves some measure of control by the decedents. Bowring v. Denco Bus Lines, Inc., 196 Okla. 1, 162 P.2d 525; Cosden v. Wright, 202 Okla. 211, 211 P.2d 523; Tillery v. Ellison, Okla., 345 P.2d 434. (6) The doctrine of assumption of risk does not apply herein as claimed by defendants, in view of the relationship between the parties and since the negligence of defendant was in the nature of a hidden dangerous condition, unknown to the three decedents or the plaintiff Mary Lou Richardson and a failure to warn thereof, and a normal or obvious risk is not involved. 65 C.J.S. Negligence § 50, page 541; City of Drumright v. Moore, 197 Okla. 306, 170 P.2d 230; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Sanders, Okla., 372 P.2d 1021.

  2. Graham v. Bishop

    428 P.2d 223 (Okla. 1967)   Cited 1 times

    "Although an instruction standing alone may be subject to criticism, if instructions in their entirety, fairly submit issues to a jury the giving of such instructions is not reversible error where it does not appear that the jury has been misled thereby. See Bowring v. Denco Bus Line, 196 Okla. 1, 162 P.2d 525. The possible deficiency of instruction No. 8 appears to have been met by other instructions."

  3. Bagley v. Blue Flame Propane Company

    1966 OK 161 (Okla. 1966)   Cited 8 times
    In Bagley v. Blue Flame Propane Company, Okla., 418 P.2d 333, we held that where contributory negligence is properly plead and there is evidence tending to prove it in any degree, it is the duty of the trial court to submit it as a question of fact for the jury to determine.

    The rule is well established in this jurisdiction that a party may not complain of an instruction given by the trial court when he himself has requested the same. Bowring v. Denco Bus Lines, Inc., 196 Okla. 1, 162 P.2d 525. In Brightmire v. Darnold, Okla., 272 P.2d 401, the trial court submitted an instruction on contributory negligence after having been requested to do so by the plaintiff.

  4. Hair v. Wilson

    391 P.2d 789 (Okla. 1964)   Cited 6 times

    This court has held that where the answer charges contributory negligence in general terms and a reply has been filed to such answer, and sufficiency of the answer has not been assailed by a motion to make more definite and certain, the answer is sufficient to raise the issue of contributory negligence. See Blossom Heath Operating Co. v. Pipkin, 178 Okla. 617, 63 P.2d 982, and Bowring v. Denco Bus Lines, 196 Okla. 1, 162 P.2d 525. It is our conclusion that in the present situation where the answer pleads contributory negligence in terms that render it subject to a motion to make more definite and certain and no such motion is filed, and plaintiff files a reply thereto, the answer is sufficient to raise the defense of contributory negligence.

  5. Guffey v. Towery

    388 P.2d 490 (Okla. 1964)   Cited 2 times

    Although an instruction standing alone may be subject to criticism, if instructions in their entirety, fairly submit issues to a jury the giving of such instructions is not reversible error where it does not appear that the jury has been misled thereby. See Bowring v. Denco Bus Line, 196 Okla. 1, 162 P.2d 525. The possible deficiency of instruction No. 8 appears to have been met by other instructions. Instruction No. 4 reads, in part:

  6. Brown v. Reames

    364 P.2d 906 (Okla. 1961)   Cited 5 times
    In Brown v. Reames, 364 P.2d 906, 910 (Okla. 1961), we said "[u]ndue prominence should not be given to particular phases of a case and the refusal to give an instruction which would so do is not error."

    The case of Young v. Egger, 193 Okla. 172, 141 P.2d 1007, cited by plaintiff, is not in point here because the defense of contributory negligence was instructed upon in full in that case when no contributory negligence was pled or testified to. The use of the above mentioned words could not be considered an instruction on contributory negligence. In Bowring v. Denco Bus Lines, Inc. et al., 196 Okla. 1, 162 P.2d 525, 526, we said: "While an instruction standing alone may be subject to criticism, if the instructions in their entirety fairly submit the issues to the jury, the giving of such instruction is not reversible error where it does not appear that the jury has been misled thereby."

  7. Brightmire v. Darnold

    272 P.2d 401 (Okla. 1954)   Cited 2 times
    In Brightmire v. Darnold, Okla., 272 P.2d 401, the trial court submitted an instruction on contributory negligence after having been requested to do so by the plaintiff.

    Since plaintiff's requested instructions 1 and 2 both include the issue of contributory negligence, plaintiff cannot now complain of instruction No. 7, relating to the issue of contributory negligence, on the ground that such issue was not made by the pleadings. Bowring v. Denco Bus Lines, 196 Okla. 1, 162 P.2d 525. Judgment affirmed.

  8. Warren v. Layman

    267 P.2d 590 (Okla. 1954)   Cited 9 times

    " In the case of Bowring v. Denco Bus Lines, 196 Okla. 1, 162 P.2d 525, 526, the plaintiff there contended that the allegations of the defense of contributory negligence were insufficiently stated. In the opinion it is said:

  9. Oklahoma Ry. Co. v. Benson

    257 P.2d 1084 (Okla. 1953)   Cited 1 times

    An erroneous instruction standing alone without more does not constitute reversible error. Pact Gas Co. v. Baker et ux., 203 Okla. 124, 218 P.2d 912, and Bowring v. Denco Bus Lines, 196 Okla. 1, 162 P.2d 525. Lastly, defendant contends that plaintiff was awarded excessive damages appearing to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice.

  10. Midland Valley R. Co. v. Lowery

    248 P.2d 1042 (Okla. 1952)   Cited 7 times

    The two instructions immediately above referred to, as well as to the other instructions of the court, taken together in their entirety, fairly submitted the issues to the jury, although the single instruction complained of, standing alone, is subject to criticism. This court has repeatedly held that while a single instruction, standing alone may be subject to criticism, when instructions taken together in their entirety fairly submit the issues to the jury, the judgment of the trial court or the jury will not be disturbed. Johnson v. Short, 204 Okla. 656, 232 P.2d 944; Bowring v. Denco Bus Lines, 196 Okla. 1, 162 P.2d 525. Examination of the instructions given by the trial court shows that they fairly presented to the jury the law covering the case, upon the issues raised by the pleadings and evidence, and that the trial court did not err in giving the instructions complained of and failing to give certain instructions suggested by the plaintiff in error. Affirmed.