THOMPSON v. NORWOOD

THOMPSON v. NORWOOD
1941 OK 283
117 P.2d 791
189 Okla. 360
Case Number: 30125
Decided: 09/23/1941
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

THOMPSON, Trustee
v.
NORWOOD

Syllabus

¶0 1. NEGLIGENCE--Answer held general denial in legal effect and not to plead contributory negligence.
An answer, in a negligence action, which denies the allegations of the petition and alleges that the injury was wholly the result of the plaintiff's own negligence, does not present the issue of contributory negligence, but is in legal effect a general denial.
2. SAME --Instructions on contributory negligence invading province of jury contrary to provision of Constitution.
Instructions which tell the jury that the plaintiff cannot recover if he was guilty of certain acts of negligence in connection with the accident invade the province of the jury, contrary to the provisions of section 6, art. 23, of the Oklahoma Constitution.
3. APPEAL AND ERROR--Discretion of trial court as to granting new trial--Presumptions favor correctness of ruling.
A motion for new trial is addressed to the sound legal discretion of the trial court, and this court will indulge every presumption in favor of the correctness of the ruling of the trial judge sustaining such motion, and such an order will not be disturbed on appeal unless the record shows clearly that the court erred on a pure and unmixed question of law, or acted arbitrarily or capriciously.

Appeal from District Court, Muskogee County; O. H. P. Brewer, Judge.

Action by C. C. Norwood against Guy A. Thompson, Trustee for the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, a Bankrupt Debtor. Judgment for defendant; plaintiff's motion for new trial sustained, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Thomas B. Pryor and W. L. Curtis, both of Ft. Smith, Ark., for plaintiff in error.
C. W. Garrett and Thos. J. Wiley, both of Muskogee, for defendant in error.

HURST, J.

¶1 This is an appeal from an order sustaining a motion for new trial. The plaintiff, Norwood, sued for damages for personal injuries and injury to his truck caused by a collision between his truck and a train of defendant in the town of Ft. Gibson. It appears from the record that plaintiff ran his truck into the side of the train as it was moving across the highway.

¶2 The act of negligence charged in plaintiff's petition is that the defendant failed to provide at said crossing adequate warning devices, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. The defendant answered by general denial and by alleging that the plaintiff was guilty of three separate acts of negligence, which were the sole cause of the accident.

¶3 The trial court, over the objections of plaintiff, gave three instructions as to the duty of the plaintiff in keeping with the allegations of the answer, and in two of them the jury was told that if the plaintiff was guilty of negligence as alleged, he could not recover. These instructions were erroneous in two respects: (1) They submitted the issue of contributory negligence when it was not raised by the answer, which was in legal effect a general denial (Colonial Refining Co. v. Lathrop, 64 Okla. 47, 166 P. 747, L.R.A. 1917F, 890); and (2) they invade the province of the jury, in violation of section 6, Art. 23, of the State Constitution, in that they told the jury, in effect, that certain facts constituted contributory negligence which prevented recovery by the plaintiff. Owens v. Turman Oil Co., 183 Okla. 182, 80 P.2d 576; Dierksen v. Hollingworth, 184 Okla. 611, 89 P.2d 358. The trial court assigned no reason for sustaining the motion for new trial, nor was he requested to do so.

¶4 We are unable to say from a careful examination of the record that the defendant was entitled to an instructed verdict, as requested and argued, and that the giving of said instructions constituted harmless error. We conclude that the court did not abuse his discretion in granting a new trial. See Carpenter v. Buellesfeld, 187 Okla. 213, 102 P.2d 119.

¶5 Judgment affirmed.

¶6 CORN, V. C. J., and RILEY, BAYLESS, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur.