Court Opinion

ID: 9625181
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:30:25.339065+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:02.151140
License: Public Domain

O’NEAL, Justice
(dissenting).
It will be observed that the majority opinion of the court is based entirely upon its reference to a principle of law announced in Yarnell v. Kilgore, 15 Okl. 591, 82 P. 990, decided by the Supreme Court of the Territory of Oklahoma in 1905. In that case this court said:
“It is the duty of a trial court, where a motion for a new trial contains as one of the grounds therefor that the verdict is not supported by the evidence, to weigh the evidence and to either approve or disapprove the verdict, using its own reason and judgment in determining such matter; and if the verdict is such that its own mind refuses to concur in it, after due consideration, and the court honestly believes that the verdict should have been for the adverse party, it should grant a new trial.”
I respectfully submit that the general rule there announced has no application to the record before us. Quite to the contrary, this court has uniformly held that if the trial court errs in some pure, simple, and unmixed question of law that the order setting aside a verdict and granting a new trial cannot be sustained. Reyes v. Goss, 205 Okl. 140, 235 P.2d 950; Thompson v. Chamblee, 206 Okl. 602, 245 P.2d 716.
The majority opinion states that the case in the trial court was one for damages resulting from an alleged change of grade under the provisions of Title 11 O.S.1951 § 82. Neither the pleadings of the parties, the issues joined, or the evidence in support thereof are otherwise referred to.
The record on this appeal presents one question of fact and one of law. The undisputed evidence as disclosed by the record establishes that on January 14, 1907, an addition designated as Belle Isle Addition was platted and a dedication thereof filed as required by law. Thereafter, and on October 22, 1929, The City of Oklahoma City, by Ordinance, brought said addition into the corporate limits of the City. The City never established any grade on Classen Boulevard adjacent to the Drinkwater lots prior to the year 1950. In that year, by Ordinance, the City established a grade and constructed a two-way street on Clas-sen Boulevard.
The proof submitted is without contradiction that the grade established on Clas-sen Boulevard was under the Ordinance of 1950, and that this grade was the first and only grade established by the City of Oklahoma City.
Title 11 O.S.1951 § 82, provides:
“No change of any grade previously established by such city or incorporated town shall be made without making due compensation to the owners of abutting property for any damage thereby caused to the permanent improvements erected thereon with reference to the grade so previously established; pro*1112vided, however, that the failure to make such compensation shall in no wise invalidate such assessments on the property chargeable therewith as hereinafter provided.”
Before the defendants in the case before us can recover damages for the alleged change of the street grade, they must show that the grade has been changed. City of Yale v. Noble, 113 Okl. 106, 239 P. 463; City of Tulsa v. Dickson, 166 Okl. 206, 26 P.2d 920. In the case at bar the defendants made no effort to show the establishment of any grade by the City of Oklahoma City, prior to 1950.
The majority opinion does not refer to the trial court’s instructions, nor does it suggest that the instructions given erroneously stated the applicable law. I find that the court submitted the pivotal question of law in its Instruction No. 6. which reads as follows:
“You are further instructed if you find from the evidence that this is the first establishment of a grade on Clas-sen Boulevard by the Plaintiff, and that the lowering of the grade is reasonable under all the surrounding circumstances, then you must find for the plaintiff, The City of Oklahoma City and return a verdict denying the recovery of damages by the defendants on their cross-petition.
“On the other hand you are instructed that if you find from the evidence that this is a change of grade previously established by the Plaintiff, The City of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and that such change of grade was the direct and proximate cause of the damage to the defendant’s property herein, if any, then and in that event you should return a verdict in favor of defendants on their cross-petition in such sum as you find by a preponderance of the evidence the said defendants have been damaged.”
I respectfully submit that the instruction is in complete accord with Title 11 O.S.19'51 § 82, and is supported by our opinions in the City of Yale and City of Tulsa cases, supra.
In my judgment the majority opinion fails to give adequate consideration to the cited statute and to this court’s opinions construing the same. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to say that Mr. Justice WILLIAMS concurs in the views expressed in this dissent.