Court Opinion

ID: 9544674
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:59:07.849637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:24.920109
License: Public Domain

BERRY, Justice
(dissenting).
I am unable to agree with the majority opinion.
The;basic issues presented by this case are whether Dave Moody was guilty of primary negligence in operating his pickup truck immediately before the collision and whether O. C. Childers was guilty of contributory negligence in failing to exercise reasonable care for his safety immediately before said collision.
In Stillwater Milling Co. v. Templin, 182 Okl. 309, 310, 77 P.2d 732, 734, we had this to say:
.“The court, of course, was correct in instructing the jury that the negligence, if any, of the husband was not imputable to the wife. There was no joint enterprise and the agency was not proved. But it does not follow that the court should have determined as a matter of law that she was not guilty of contributory negligence. The case of Hasty v. Pittsburg County R. Co., 112 Okl. 144, 240 P. 1056, 1059, involved injuries to a wife riding in a car driven by, her husband. The court rejected the plea of imputed negligence and joint enterprise, but said: ‘What, if anything, plaintiff should have 'done, or omitted to ■ do, in the exercise of reasonable care for her ovsn safety, to prevent her injuries, depended upon the facts and circumstances. Thus the jury, under our Constitution, should have determined whether she was guilty of contributory negligence.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.)
The fact that defendants failed to request an instruction on the matter of whether plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in the foregoing particulars does not serve to make this case free of reversible error. In the case Roadway Express, Inc. v. Baty, 189 Okl. 180, 182, 114 P.2d 935, 938, we held that “ * * * It was the court’s duty, on its own motion, to instruct correctly on the issue of contributory negligence. It was a fundamental issue of law involved in the case. § 359, O.S.1931, 12 01cl.St.Ann. § 577, subd. 5; First National Bank of Mounds v. Cox, 83 Okl. 1, 200 P. 238; Liberty National Bank of Weatherford v. Semkoff, 184 Okl. 18, 84 P.2d 438; City of Altus v. Martin, 185 Okl. 446, 94 P.2d 1. * * *”
I am of the opinion that under the facts of this case, the trial court’s failure to instruct on the fundamental question of contributory negligence on the part of O. C. Childers prevented the defendants from having the fair and full trial that they are entitled to and for said reason I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.