Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Prickett v. Sulzberger Sons Co.

57 Okla. 567 (Okla. 1916)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Prickett v. Sulzberger Sons Co.

35 Citing cases

  1. Wells v. Roofing

    2019 OK 45 (Okla. 2019)   Cited 11 times
    Classifying the allegations in petition as alleging intentional conduct by the party and noting allegations of a required improper safety procedure with employer's knowledge

    Walston v. Boeing Co. , 181 Wash.2d 391, ¶ 26, 334 P.3d 519, 525 (2014) ("The gradations of tortious conduct can best be understood as a continuum.") citing Woodson v. Rowland , 329 N.C. 330, 341-42, 407 S.E.2d 222 (1991) (discussing the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 8A & cmt. b (1965) and W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 8, at 35 (5th ed.1984).Fox v. Memorial Hospital, see note 3, supra at ¶7; Flanders v. Crane Co., 1984 OK 88, ¶10, 693 P.2d 602, 605 (Okla. 1984) ; Prickett v. Sulzberger & Sons Co., 1916 OK 387, ¶51, 57 Okl. 567, 157 P. 356, 365 (1916).Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. , 579 U.S. ––––, ––––, 136 S.Ct. 1923, 1933, 195 L.Ed.2d 278 (2016) (observing "culpability is generally measured against the knowledge of the actor at the time of the challenged conduct" with citations including, but not limited to, the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 8A (1965) ("intent" denotes state of mind in which "the actor desires to cause consequences of his act" or "believes" them to be "substantially certain to result from it"), and W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Law of Torts § 34, p. 212 (5th ed. 1984) (describing willful, wanton, and reckless as "look[ing] to the actor's real or supposed state of mind"), and Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Burr , 551 U.S. 47, 69, 127 S.Ct. 2201, 167 L.Ed.2d 1045 (2007), (a person is reckless if he acts "knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reasonable man to realize" his actions are unreasonably

  2. Greenleaf v. P.S. Bridge Etc. Co.

    58 Wn. 2d 647 (Wash. 1961)   Cited 39 times
    Finding the common law duty was breached by failing to provide proper lighting

    [3] The Iowa court indicated that such is a jury question. Furthermore, in Prickett v. Sulzberger Sons Co., 57 Okla. 567, 157 P. 356, the court held: "As to the necessity, character, and amount of light which ought to be furnished it is invariably held to be a question for the jury to determine whether the defendant was negligent. . .. "

  3. Southern Drilling Co. v. McKee

    42 P.2d 265 (Okla. 1935)   Cited 11 times

    These are nondelegable duties resting upon the master. Choctaw Electric Co. v. Clark, 28 Okla. 399, 114 P. 730; Prickett v. Sulzberger Sons, 57 Okla. 567, 157 P. 356. It is true that the master has discretion concerning the kind of machinery he will use, and may use, either new or old, but there is a further duty resting upon the master. He must select and use the type and kind of machinery, and conduct his work in such a method as not to throw an undue danger on his employees.

  4. Johnson v. Mid-South Sports, Inc.

    1991 OK 17 (Okla. 1991)   Cited 29 times
    In Johnson, the usher on duty during the wrestling match recognized the possibility of an argument between fans and exercised ordinary care in calling an officer over to investigate the rowdy behavior of several beer-drinking spectators.

    Although I consider these omissions unfortunate, I dissent because of questions which must be resolved by the trier of fact — the existence of material questions of fact, the resolution of the issues of negligence and the degrees thereof. Issues of negligence and the degrees thereof are questions for the trier of fact. Fox v. Oklahoma Memorial Hosp., 774 P.2d 459 462 (Okla. 1989); Flanders v. Crane Co., 693 P.2d 602, 605 (Okla. 1984); Prickett v. Sulzberger Sons Co., 57 Okla. 567, 157 P. 356, 365 (1916). FACTS

  5. Erwin v. Frazier

    1989 OK 95 (Okla. 1990)   Cited 44 times
    Holding that allegations of attorney negligence, damage, and a prayer for recovery sufficiently pled a cause of action despite the fact that all elements of malpractice would have to be proved at trial.

    This reluctance should be even more pronounced in negligence cases because negligence is so much a question of fact which varies from one situation to another. See Prickett v. Sulzberger Sons Co., 157 P. 356, 357 (Okla. 1916); Smith v. American Flyers, Inc., 540 P.2d 1212, 1214 (Okla. App. 1975) . . . Under Oklahoma law, questions concerning negligence, contributory negligence and assumption of the risks are for the trier of fact." Flanders, supra at 605, 606.

  6. Fox v. Oklahoma Memorial Hosp

    1989 OK 38 (Okla. 1989)   Cited 34 times
    Concluding that issues of negligence and the degrees thereof are questions for the trier of fact

    Buckner v. Gen. Motors Corp., 760 P.2d 803, 812 (Okla. 1988).Flanders v. Crane Co., 693 P.2d 602, 605 (Okla. 1984); Prickett v. Sulzberger Sons Co., 57 Okla. 567, 157 P. 356, 365 (1916). AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART

  7. Wilhelm v. Gray

    1988 OK 142 (Okla. 1989)   Cited 7 times
    In Wilhelm v. Gray, Okla., 766 P.2d 1357 (1988), we held that "because the appellants amended petition sounds only in negligence," there could be no § 1983 relief.

    Flanders v. Crane Co., 693 P.2d 602, 605 (Okla. 1984); Prickett v. Sulzberger Sons Co., 57 Okla. 567, 157 P. 356, 365 (1916).

  8. Flanders v. Crane Co.

    1984 OK 88 (Okla. 1985)   Cited 96 times
    In Flanders v. Crane, 693 P.2d at 606, we held that the defense of assumption of the risk need not be presented to the jury if (1) the plaintiff fails to present evidence showing primary negligence on the part of the defendant, or (2) if there are no material facts in dispute, and reasonable minds exercising fair and impartial judgment could not reach differing conclusions.

    This reluctance should be even more pronounced in negligence cases because negligence is so much a question of fact which varies from one situation to another. See Prickett v. Sulzberger Sons Co., 57 Okla. 1567, 157 P. 356, 357 (1916); Smith v. American Flyers, Inc., 540 P.2d 1212, 1214 (Okla.Ct. App. 1975). Thus, despite its usefulness in terms of judicial economy, summary judgment must not be allowed to deprive a litigant of a jury trial of disputed issues of fact.

  9. Mississippi Power Company v. Brooks

    309 So. 2d 863 (Miss. 1975)   Cited 25 times

    W. Prosser, The Law of Torts § 80 at 546 (3d ed. 1964); 41 Am.Jur.2d, Independent Contractors §§ 24, 25, 27 (1968); Annot., 31 A.L.R.2d 1375 (1953); 57 C.J.S. Master and Servant § 603 (1948); see generally, Whatley v. Delta Brokerage Warehouse Co., 248 Miss. 416, 159 So.2d 634 (1964); May v. Vardaman Mfg. Co., 244 Miss. 261, 142 So.2d 18 (1962). Moreover, this duty to use reasonable care to furnish the employees of a subcontractor a reasonably safe place to work includes that of furnishing light when necessary to make the place where the work is being done reasonably safe. Greenleaf v. Puget Sound Bridge Dredging Co., 58 Wn.2d 647, 364 P.2d 796 (1961); Crawford v. Duluth Missabe Iron Range Co., 220 Minn. 225, 230, 19 N.W.2d 384, 388 (1945); Prickett v. Sulzberger Sons Co., 57 Okla. 567, 157 P. 356 (1916); Burns v. Northern Iowa Brick Tile Co., 152 Iowa 61, 130 N.W. 1083 (1911); Annot., 44 A.L.R. 932 (1926). (228 So.2d at 367).

  10. Ingalls Shipbuilding Corporation v. McDougald

    228 So. 2d 365 (Miss. 1969)   Cited 14 times
    Recognizing that ordinarily prime contractor was not liable for torts of independent contractor, even though prime contractor who employed an independent contractor was found nevertheless answerable for his own negligence for failure to exercise reasonable care to provide employees of independent contractor with reasonably safe place to work upon ship under repair

    W. Prosser, The Law of Torts § 80 at 546 (3d ed. 1964); 41 Am.Jur.2d, Independent Contractors §§ 24, 25, 27 (1968); Annot., 31 A.L.R.2d 1375 (1953); 57 C.J.S. Master and Servant § 603 (1948); see generally, Whatley v. Delta Brokerage Warehouse Co., 248 Miss. 416, 159 So.2d 634 (1964); May v. Vardaman Mfg. Co., 244 Miss. 261, 142 So.2d 18 (1962). Moreover, this duty to use reasonable care to furnish the employees of a subcontractor a reasonably safe place to work includes that of furnishing light when necessary to make the place where the work is being done reasonably safe. Greenleaf v. Puget Sound Bridge Dredging Co., 58 Wn.2d 647, 364 P.2d 796 (1961); Crawford v. Duluth Missabe Iron Range Co., 220 Minn. 225, 230, 19 N.W.2d 384, 388 (1945); Prickett v. Sulzberger Sons Co., 57 Okla. 567, 157 P. 356 (1916); Bruns v. Northern Iowa Brick Tile Co., 152 Iowa 61, 130 N.W. 1083 (1911); Annot., 44 A.L.R. 932 (1926). The evidence and reasonable inferences from it were sufficient to justify the jury in finding that Ingalls, in control of the vessel, failed to exercise reasonable care to furnish plaintiff a reasonably safe place to work, by its undisputed failure to have the aft deck of the vessel lighted, and that this negligence was a proximate cause of McDougald's injuries.