refusal to give instruction in Oklahoma

1972In discussing the problem the court quoted from Gourley v. City of Oklahoma City, 104 Okl. 210 , 230 P. 923 , as follows: “The defense of contributory negligence under section 6, art. 23, of the Constitution, being made a question of fact to be determined by the jury, it is the duty of the court in such cases, where an instruction on this theory is asked, to instruct the jury that one who has negligently contributed to his own injury cannot recover, and a refusal to give such instruction when asked is error.” We then said: “Other cases to the same general effect are: * * * St.

1972In discussing the problem the court quoted from Gourley v. City of Oklahoma City, 104 Okl. 210 , 230 P. 923 , as follows: “The defense of contributory negligence under section 6, art. 23, of the Constitution, being made a question of fact to be determined by the jury, it is the duty of the court in such cases, where an instruction on this theory is asked, to instruct the jury that one who has negligently contributed to his own injury cannot recover, and a refusal to give such instruction when asked is error.” We then said: “Other cases to the same general effect are: * * * St.

1961Snouffer v. First National Bank of Medford, 86 Okl. 190 , 207 P. 452 .

1961Snouffer v. First National Bank of Medford, 86 Okl. 190 , 207 P. 452 .

1957“Instructions complained of will not be examined by this court unless the complaining party has properly preserved his exceptions to the giving or the refusal to give the instruction of which complaint is made.” Roger Mills County Co-Operative Ass’n v. Neice, 184 Okl. 48 , 84 P.2d 621, 622 . *404 In Klaus v. Fleming, Okl., 304 P.2d 990, 991 , the opinion states: “In order to have a review of the action of a trial court in giving certain instructions, it is necessary that the exceptions to the instructions as given be signed by the trial judge, as provided by statute, 12 O.S.1951 § 578.

1957“Instructions complained of will not be examined by this court unless the complaining party has properly preserved his exceptions to the giving or the refusal to give the instruction of which complaint is made.” Roger Mills County Co-Operative Ass’n v. Neice, 184 Okl. 48 , 84 P.2d 621, 622 . *404 In Klaus v. Fleming, Okl., 304 P.2d 990, 991 , the opinion states: “In order to have a review of the action of a trial court in giving certain instructions, it is necessary that the exceptions to the instructions as given be signed by the trial judge, as provided by statute, 12 O.S.1951 § 578.

1957“Instructions complained of will not be examined by this court unless the complaining party has properly preserved his exceptions to the giving or the refusal to give the instruction of which complaint is made.” Roger Mills County Co-Operative Ass’n v. Neice, 184 Okl. 48 , 84 P.2d 621, 622 . *404 In Klaus v. Fleming, Okl., 304 P.2d 990, 991 , the opinion states: “In order to have a review of the action of a trial court in giving certain instructions, it is necessary that the exceptions to the instructions as given be signed by the trial judge, as provided by statute, 12 O.S.1951 § 578.

1951And, in Garrett v. Mayor, 202 Okla. 602 , 216 P. 2d 965 , we said that this court will not review alleged error in refusing an instruction on the trial of a cause, unless the refusal to give such instruction is excepted to at the trial and exception made to appear of record and the objection pointed out in the trial court by motion for new trial.

1951And, in Garrett v. Mayor, 202 Okla. 602 , 216 P. 2d 965 , we said that this court will not review alleged error in refusing an instruction on the trial of a cause, unless the refusal to give such instruction is excepted to at the trial and exception made to appear of record and the objection pointed out in the trial court by motion for new trial.

1936In Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v. Oliphant, 172 Okla. 635 , 45 P. (2d) 1077 , where the employee, an experienced electrician, in the performance of his duties, was sent to investigate, and repair, if necessary, defects in the lighting system of a patron, and while attempting to make said repairs came in contact with high voltage electricity and was killed and an action was brought for his wrongful death, the court gave the following instruction: “You are further instructed that to entitle the plaintiff to recover, it is not only necessary that she have established that the defendant was neglig

1936In Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v. Oliphant, 172 Okla. 635 , 45 P. (2d) 1077 , where the employee, an experienced electrician, in the performance of his duties, was sent to investigate, and repair, if necessary, defects in the lighting system of a patron, and while attempting to make said repairs came in contact with high voltage electricity and was killed and an action was brought for his wrongful death, the court gave the following instruction: “You are further instructed that to entitle the plaintiff to recover, it is not only necessary that she have established that the defendant was neglig

1935In City of Skiatook v. Carrol, 163 Okla. 149 , 21 P. (2d) 498 , the court said: “We find no error in the refusal to give the instruction requested.

1935In City of Skiatook v. Carrol, 163 Okla. 149 , 21 P. (2d) 498 , the court said: “We find no error in the refusal to give the instruction requested.

1934We have carefully examined the instructions as given, and we find that they fairly submitted the issues to the jury under the rule stated in Muskogee Electric Traction Co. v. Rye, 47 Okla. 142 , 148 P. 100 , and that the defendant is not in a position to object to the generality of the instructions as given, when he did noli ask for ’ more explicit instructions.

1934We have carefully examined the instructions as given, and we find that they fairly submitted the issues to the jury under the rule stated in Muskogee Electric Traction Co. v. Rye, 47 Okla. 142 , 148 P. 100 , and that the defendant is not in a position to object to the generality of the instructions as given, when he did noli ask for ’ more explicit instructions.

1931Evidence has been introduced by the plaintiff in this case tending' to show that plaintiff or some members of plaintiff’s family have been sick, and you are instructed not to consider such evidence in arriving at a verdict in the ease, for the reason that it has not been shown or established sufficiently by the evidence that such sickness, if any, was the result of defendant’s act, and it has not been shown that the operation of the sewer system by defendant was the direct and proximate cause of plaintiff’s sickness or sickness of plaintiff’s family.” The defendant contends that the refusal wa

1927Success Realty Co. v. Trowbridge, 50 Okla. 402 , 150 Pac. 898 ; Barnes v. Lynch, 9 Okla. 191 , 59 Pac. 995 ; Okla.

1927Success Realty Co. v. Trowbridge, 50 Okla. 402 , 150 Pac. 898 ; Barnes v. Lynch, 9 Okla. 191 , 59 Pac. 995 ; Okla.

1927Success Realty Co. v. Trowbridge, 50 Okla. 402 , 150 Pac. 898 ; Barnes v. Lynch, 9 Okla. 191 , 59 Pac. 995 ; Okla.

1924Co. v. Traver, 36 Okla. 717 , 129 Pac. 747 , said in the first paragraph of the syllabus: • “The defense of contributory negligence under section 6, art. 23, of the Constitution, being made a question of fact to be determined by the jury, it is the duty of the court in such cases, where an instruction on this theory is asked, to instruct the jury that one who has negligently contributed to his own injury cannot recover, and a refusal to give such instruction when asked is error.” This case was quoted with approval in the case of Dickinson et al. v. Whitaker, 75 Okla. 243 , 182 Pac. 904 , and a

1924Heatley v. Territory, 15 Okla. 72 , 78 Pac. 79 ; Maddox v. State, 12 Okla.

1924Heatley v. Territory, 15 Okla. 72 , 78 Pac. 79 ; Maddox v. State, 12 Okla.

1924Heatley v. Territory, 15 Okla. 72 , 78 Pac. 79 ; Maddox v. State, 12 Okla.

1924Co. v. Traver, 36 Okla. 717 , 129 Pac. 747 , said in the first paragraph of the syllabus: • “The defense of contributory negligence under section 6, art. 23, of the Constitution, being made a question of fact to be determined by the jury, it is the duty of the court in such cases, where an instruction on this theory is asked, to instruct the jury that one who has negligently contributed to his own injury cannot recover, and a refusal to give such instruction when asked is error.” This case was quoted with approval in the case of Dickinson et al. v. Whitaker, 75 Okla. 243 , 182 Pac. 904 , and a

1924Co. v. Traver, 36 Okla. 717 , 129 Pac. 747 , said in the first paragraph of the syllabus: • “The defense of contributory negligence under section 6, art. 23, of the Constitution, being made a question of fact to be determined by the jury, it is the duty of the court in such cases, where an instruction on this theory is asked, to instruct the jury that one who has negligently contributed to his own injury cannot recover, and a refusal to give such instruction when asked is error.” This case was quoted with approval in the case of Dickinson et al. v. Whitaker, 75 Okla. 243 , 182 Pac. 904 , and a

1924Co. v. Traver, 36 Okla. 717 , 129 Pac. 747 , said in the first paragraph of the syllabus: • “The defense of contributory negligence under section 6, art. 23, of the Constitution, being made a question of fact to be determined by the jury, it is the duty of the court in such cases, where an instruction on this theory is asked, to instruct the jury that one who has negligently contributed to his own injury cannot recover, and a refusal to give such instruction when asked is error.” This case was quoted with approval in the case of Dickinson et al. v. Whitaker, 75 Okla. 243 , 182 Pac. 904 , and a

1924Co. v. Traver, 36 Okla. 717 , 129 Pac. 747 , said in the first paragraph of the syllabus: • “The defense of contributory negligence under section 6, art. 23, of the Constitution, being made a question of fact to be determined by the jury, it is the duty of the court in such cases, where an instruction on this theory is asked, to instruct the jury that one who has negligently contributed to his own injury cannot recover, and a refusal to give such instruction when asked is error.” This case was quoted with approval in the case of Dickinson et al. v. Whitaker, 75 Okla. 243 , 182 Pac. 904 , and a

1921A case almost identical was decided by the Supreme Court of Oregon in the case of Rutherford v. Thompson, 12 Pac. 382 .

1921Hendrix v. U. S., 2 Okla.

1921Rutherford v. U. S., 1 Okla.