Court Opinion

ID: 9825884
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 14:14:50.14705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:27.128667
License: Public Domain

Humphreys, J., (on rehearing). The contention is made by appellant on rehearing that it requested a specific instruction correctly interpreting the statutes of Oklahoma, which were read to the jury, which was tantamount to making a specific objection to reading* them. The instruction referred to was appellant’s requested instruction No. 4, which the court refused to give. It is as follows: ‘ ‘ The court charges you that, before the plaintiff can recover in this case, he must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant actually knew that the banana peel was on the steps of said passenger car and failed to remove same therefrom within a reasonable time thereafter, or that said banana peel had been on the step of said car for such a period of time that, in the exercise of ordinary care, defendant should have known that said banana peel was on the step of said car and removed it from the steps. Unless you find from the evidence that the defendant actually knew that the banana peel was on the step, or that the banana peel had been there for a sufficient length of time that defendant should have known this, in the exercise of ordinary care, then the defendant was not negligent, and it is your duty to return a verdict for defendant.” This instruction was properly discarded by the trial court because erroneous in exempting appellant from liability unless it actually knew that the banana peel was on the steps of the passenger car, or should have known it on account of it having’ been on the floor for a reasonable length of time. Appellant reiterates its insistence .that the damages assessed by the jury were excessive. There is evidence in the record tending to show that the first joint of appellee’s backbone was wrenched, from which he suffered greatly and from which he was continuously suffering at the time of the trial; also tending to show that he was confined to his bed for six or eight weeks and that he passed blood from his kidneys for three months on account of the fall. We are unable to say that $1,000 was an excessive allowance under these circumstances. Our investigation, on reconsideration of the case, has confirmed us in the view that the judgment was properly affirmed. The petition for rehearing is therefore overruled.