An examination of the cases applying this defense, however, shows that Deere's position more accurately reflects Oklahoma law. In Jordan v. General Motors Corp., 590 P.2d 193 (Okla. 1979), the plaintiff, Jordan, sued the manufacturer of his automobile after it veered off the road while he was driving. Jordan alleged that "a link which attached the end of the stabilizer bar to the A-arm was missing, causing the right front wheel to be unstable."
" Hogue v. A.B. Chance Co., 592 P.2d 973, 975 (Okla. 1978) (emphasis in original). This principle has been restated by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, e.g., Clark v. Continental Tank Co., 744 P.2d 949, 954 (Okla. 1987); Hogue v. A.B. Chance Co., 592 P.2d 973, 975 (Okla. 1978); Jordan v. General Motors Corp., 590 P.2d 193, 196 (Okla. 1979), and by this court when applying Oklahoma law, e.g., Smith v. FMC Corp., 754 F.2d 873, 876 (10th Cir. 1985); Barber v. General Elec. Co., 648 F.2d 1272, 1277 (10th Cir. 1981). There must be evidence sufficient for a conclusion that "appellants' decedents knew of such risk and knowingly assumed the risk."
Trial courts in Oklahoma may not grant summary judgments on the basis that plaintiff assumed the risk without that plaintiff assumed the risk without proof of specific knowledge in light of Hogue, but that does not mean that they cannot submit that defense to the jury where the direct evidence of plaintiff's knowledge is unclear. Jordan v. General Motors Corp., 590 P.2d 193 (Okl. 1979), is similar to our case. The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the defense of the assumption of the risk of a known defect ought to be submitted to the jury where there is evidence suggesting that plaintiff voluntarily encountered a known risk. Plaintiff in Jordan had a one-car accident when he ran off the road after losing control of his automobile.
¶24 A ruling to allow or deny the admission of evidence rests in the trial court's sound discretion. Jordan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 1979 OK 10, ¶ 12, 590 P.2d 193, 196. "The trial court is permitted broad discretion in determining the relevance of evidence."
¶24 A ruling to allow or deny the admission of evidence rests in the trial court's sound discretion. Jordan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 1979 OK 10, ¶ 12, 590 P.2d 193, 196. "The trial court is permitted broad discretion in determining the relevance of evidence."
¶24 A ruling to allow or deny the admission of evidence rests in the trial court's sound discretion. Jordan v. Gen. Motors Corp ., 1979 OK 10, ¶ 12, 590 P.2d 193, 196. "The trial court is permitted broad discretion in determining the relevance of evidence."
The admission and exclusion of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Jordan v. Gen. Motors Corp. , 1979 OK 10, ¶ 12, 590 P.2d 193, 196. We will not reverse evidentiary decisions of the trial court absent an abuse of discretion which results in prejudice to the proponent.
¶5 Rulings concerning the admissibility of evidence are measured against the abuse of discretion standard. See Jordan v. Gen. Motors Corp., 1979 OK 10, ¶ 12, 590 P.2d 193. The Oklahoma Evidence Code, 12 O.S.2011 & Supp. 2015 §§ 2101 through 3011, allows all relevant evidence to be admitted unless excluded by rules of evidence. Title 12 O.S.2011 § 2401 defines "relevant evidence" as "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
¶ 5 Rulings concerning the admissibility of evidence are measured against the abuse of discretion standard. See Jordan v. Gen. Motors Corp. , 1979 OK 10, ¶ 12, 590 P.2d 193. The Oklahoma Evidence Code, 12 O.S.2011 & Supp. 2015 §§ 2101 through 3011, allows all relevant evidence to be admitted unless excluded by rules of evidence. Title 12 O.S.2011 § 2401 defines “relevant evidence” as “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶ 7 We review a trial court's order denying a motion for new trial for abuse of discretion. Jordan v. General Motors Corp., 1979 OK 10, ¶ 4, 590 P.2d 193, 195. "An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court exercises its discretion `to an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence. It is discretion employed on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons, or . . . which is manifestly unreasonable.