salient test in Oklahoma

1993Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co. v. Harper, 468 P.2d 1014 (Okl.1970).

1984In Fields v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., Okl., 555 P.2d 48, 57 , (1976) we said: “A judgment will not be disturbed because of allegedly erroneous instructions, unless it appears reasonably certain that the jury *1290 was misled thereby.” And in Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co. v. Harper, Okl., 468 P.2d 1014, 1020 , (1970) and cases therein cited, we held: “The salient test of reversible error in instructions is whether the jury was misled to the extent of rendering a different verdict than it would have rendered, if the alleged errors had not occurred.” Accord, Johnson v. Wade, Okl., 642 P.

1985Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co. v. Jones, Okl., 354 P.2d 415 .” A. Appellant first asserts error in the trial court’s review of the pleadings to the jury.

1970Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company v. Jones, Okl., 354 P.2d 415 .” As to defendant’s complaint about the court’s Instruction No. 14, referring to the train as having struck the auto (instead of vice versa, or as the two .colliding with each other), our view is very similar to the one we expressed in Hatcher v. Morris, Okl., 441 P.2d 462 , concerning the trial court’s Instruction No. 6 defining “contributory negligence”; and we do not think that the court’s Instruction No. 14 in this case was any more misleading than the instruction there dealt with.

1970As to such alleged errors, like alleged errors in the admission of evidence (Harris v. Conway [Okl.], 343 P.2d 1069, 1076 ) such probability of a different verdict has been recognized by this court as a salient test of reversible error, where the verdict and judgment are within the issues and supported by competent evidence, and there has been no ‘serious misdirection’ *1022 of the jury with the instructions as a whole fairly submitting' to it the decisive issues of the case.” We have thoroughly examined all of the instructions given by the trial court to the jury and have found no “serious mi

1960As to such alleged errors, like alleged errors in the admission of evidence (Harris v. Conway, 343 P.2d 1069, 1076 ) such probability of a different verdict has been recognized by this court as a salient test of reversible error, where the verdict and judgment are within the issues and supported by competent evidence, and there has been no “serious misdirection” of the jury, with the instructions as a whole fairly submitting to it the decisive issues of the case.

1984In Fields v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., Okl., 555 P.2d 48, 57 , (1976) we said: “A judgment will not be disturbed because of allegedly erroneous instructions, unless it appears reasonably certain that the jury *1290 was misled thereby.” And in Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co. v. Harper, Okl., 468 P.2d 1014, 1020 , (1970) and cases therein cited, we held: “The salient test of reversible error in instructions is whether the jury was misled to the extent of rendering a different verdict than it would have rendered, if the alleged errors had not occurred.” Accord, Johnson v. Wade, Okl., 642 P.

1984In Fields v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., Okl., 555 P.2d 48, 57 , (1976) we said: “A judgment will not be disturbed because of allegedly erroneous instructions, unless it appears reasonably certain that the jury *1290 was misled thereby.” And in Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co. v. Harper, Okl., 468 P.2d 1014, 1020 , (1970) and cases therein cited, we held: “The salient test of reversible error in instructions is whether the jury was misled to the extent of rendering a different verdict than it would have rendered, if the alleged errors had not occurred.” Accord, Johnson v. Wade, Okl., 642 P.

1976See Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 , 66 S.Ct. 1239 , 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946); Levin v. Clark [ 133 U.S.App.D.C. 6 ], 408 F.2d 1209 (D.C.

1974Salient test of reversible error in instructions is whether jury was misled to the extent of rendering a different verdict than it would have rendered, if alleged errors had not occurred." See Sun-Ray DX Oil Co. v. Brown, 477 P.2d 67 (Okl. 1970); Missouri-Kansas-Texas RR Co. v. Hayes, 445 P.2d 254 (Okl. 1968).

1974Salient test of reversible error in instructions is whether jury was misled to the extent of rendering a different verdict than it would have rendered, if alleged errors had not occurred.” See Sun-Ray DX Oil Co. v. Brown, 477 P.2d 67 (Okl.1970); Missouri-Kansas-Texas RR Co. v. Hayes, 445 P.2d 254 (Okl.1968).

1974Commonwealth Life Insurance Co. v. Gay (1961), Old., 365 P.2d 149 ; quoted in Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co. v. Harper (1970), Okl., 468 P.2d 1014 , and other cases.

1974Salient test of reversible error in instructions is whether jury was misled to the extent of rendering a different verdict than it would have rendered, if alleged errors had not occurred." See Sun-Ray DX Oil Co. v. Brown, 477 P.2d 67 (Okl. 1970); Missouri-Kansas-Texas RR Co. v. Hayes, 445 P.2d 254 (Okl. 1968).

1974Salient test of reversible error in instructions is whether jury was misled to the extent of rendering a different verdict than it would have rendered, if alleged errors had not occurred.” See Sun-Ray DX Oil Co. v. Brown, 477 P.2d 67 (Okl.1970); Missouri-Kansas-Texas RR Co. v. Hayes, 445 P.2d 254 (Okl.1968).

1972That which best accords with reason and probability. . .” In Peyton v. McCaslin, Okl., 417 P.2d 316 (1966), the Supreme Court of Oklahoma said: “. . .As the well-known axiom states, the preponderance of the evidence does not mean the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact, but means that which, to the mind of the trier of the fact, or the seeker of the truth, seems most convincing and more probably true.” In the present case defendant argues that the instructions do “not make it clear to the jury that in the event the plaintiff fails to prove its contentions that in that event judgme

1970Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company v. Jones, Okl., 354 P.2d 415 .” As to defendant’s complaint about the court’s Instruction No. 14, referring to the train as having struck the auto (instead of vice versa, or as the two .colliding with each other), our view is very similar to the one we expressed in Hatcher v. Morris, Okl., 441 P.2d 462 , concerning the trial court’s Instruction No. 6 defining “contributory negligence”; and we do not think that the court’s Instruction No. 14 in this case was any more misleading than the instruction there dealt with.