ELAM v. BEVERLY

4 Citing cases

  1. Lindemann v. Randolph

    414 P.2d 257 (Okla. 1966)   Cited 4 times

    Therein we held that a general denial was sufficient to raise the issue as to which vehicle was entitled to the right-of-way, and failure to instruct the jury upon such issue constituted reversible error. In Elam v. Beverly, 191 Okla. 375, 129 P.2d 838, we found reversible error in the failure of the trial court, upon its own motion, to instruct the jury that driving a truck at a speed in excess of that prescribed by statute for such vehicle constituted negligence per se. This because the issue involved was a fundamental issue. Riser v. Herr, 187 Okla. 211, 102 P.2d 178, involved an action for damages resulting from an intersection collision.

  2. Treadway v. Uniroyal Tire Co.

    1988 OK 37 (Okla. 1988)   Cited 8 times

    See Cunningham v. Charles Pfizer Co., Inc., 532 P.2d 1377, 1382 [Okla. 1975]; Thompson v. Galion Iron Works Mfg. Co., 201 Okla. 182, 203 P.2d 438, 442 [1949]; Elam v. Beverly, 191 Okla. 375, 129 P.2d 838, 840 [1942] and International Harvester Co. of America v. Snider, 184 Okla. 537, 88 P.2d 606, 610 [1939].Acker v. Hopfeld, 416 P.2d 953, 956 [Okla.

  3. Roberts v. Van Cleave

    237 P.2d 892 (Okla. 1951)   Cited 4 times

    Defendant claims that this instruction probably would be proper if the court had properly instructed the jury as to what constituted seduction, as distinguished from sexual intercourse, and that such failure left the matter to the caprice and whim of the jury as to what was seduction, as a matter of law. Plaintiff contends that under the ruling of this court in Elam v. Beverly, 191 Okla. 375, 129 P.2d 838, there was no duty on the part of the court on its own motion to give an instruction advising the jury as to the legal import of the word "seduction", because the defendant, both in his motion for new trial and in his petition in error, complained of the failure of the court to give several requested instructions. However, in the Elam case, supra, the complaint covered failure of the court to instruct the jury upon the essential and substantial issues in that case.

  4. Elam v. Loyd

    204 P.2d 280 (Okla. 1949)   Cited 15 times

    Under all of the instructions of the court, it is plain that for the negligence of the plaintiff to preclude recovery it must have combined and concurred with the negligent act of the defendant as the proximate cause of the injury. It would seem that the failure of the trial court to instruct that the violation of the statute is negligence per se is more favorable to the plaintiff than to the defendant. See Elam v. Beverly, 191 Okla. 375, 129 P.2d 838. There is no contention made that the defendant is not a member of the class which the statute above is intended to protect, or that the injury is not of the kind the statute intended to prevent. Although the evidence is that the lens of the taillight was yellow instead of red, the evidence as to whether the taillight was burning was in conflict. If the jury had found the taillight, though yellow, was burning, they could have found under the instructions that the negligence of the plaintiff in failing to comply with the requirements of the statute as to the color of the tail-light was not contributory negligence.