 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rose v. City of Tulsa2/18/2005
Mandate Issued: 06/03/2005
AFFIRMED
Defendant City of Tulsa, a municipal corporation ("City") seeks review of the trial court's order granting a directed verdict for Plaintiff/Appellee Sonja Dee Rose ("Rose") on the issue of liability regarding Rose's action to recover damages sustained in a rear-end car wreck. City complains that the trial court (1) improperly withheld the issue of negligence from the jury; (2) erred in refusing to instruct the jury on "unavoidable accident" and (3) erred in not instructing the jury on sovereign immunity under the Governmental Tort Claims Act. Finding no error, however, we affirm.
On June 10, 1999, City's employee, while driving a pickup truck in the course of his duties, struck from behind the car occupied by Rose, causing property damage and personal injury to Rose. She filed suit and the matter was tried to a jury on May 7, 2003. At the close of evidence, the trial court granted Rose's Motion for Directed Verdict on the issue of City's liability and submitted the issue of damages to the jury. The jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff and awarded her actual damages.
We review de novo a trial court's ruling on a motion for directed verdict. Computer Publications, Inc. v. Welton, 2002 OK 50, , 49 P.3d 732, 735. Although the general rule is that the "determination of the question of negligence, that is, what is or what is not negligence, in nearly every case is a question for the jury . . . [it is] . . . a question of law for the court . . . in cases where the admitted facts are so conclusive" that reasonable men would not disagree thereon. Gwinn v. Payne, 1970 OK 145, , 477 P.2d 680, 683, 684. Where the "evidence supports the trial court's rendering a directed verdict," the granting of a directed verdict will be affirmed. Smith v. Marshall Oil Corporation, 2004 OK 10, , 85 P.3d 830, 838.
The evidence reveals that just before leaving from the City's park office, the City's driver visited with people who were gathered underneath a porch while it rained. He then drove on a route with which he was very familiar. The route included an intersection with a stop sign at the bottom of a steep hill. Despite the rain and the nature of the route, City's driver traveled at no less than the posted speed limit. City's driver braked while coming down the hill but felt as if he gained speed to the extent that he felt he was traveling 100 m.p.h. prior to hitting Rose's car from behind while it was stopped at the stop sign. After the collision, other vehicles crested the hill, slid, but were able to safely stop.
City argues that the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict of liability as it should have submitted the case to the jury with an unavoidable accident instruction as City's driver was driving prudently since it was not foreseeable that the roads were slick. Rose contends the doctrine of unavoidable accident does not apply.
Oklahoma motorists are legally bound to have sufficient power to avoid a collision by driving at "an appropriate reduced speed when approaching . . . an intersection . . . when approaching a hillcrest . . . and when special hazard exists . . . by reason of weather or highway conditions," by driving at a speed less than the posted speed limit "when a special hazard exists that requires lower speed" in order to be able to stop as required by law; and to "avoid collision with other persons properly operating vehicles on the same highway, and this includes being able to slow the car to meet the requirements of varying road conditions or to stop it, if necessary, to avoid collision." Huey v. Stephens, 1954 OK 222, , 275 P.2d at 256. Generally:
An
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|