Hayward v. Ginn

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed a defense verdict in an automobile-collision action arising from a Kansas accident. The court held that instructions concerning Kansas statutes, negligence per se, and the plaintiff's potential joint tortfeasor liability were not reversible error, and that although submitting unavoidable accident as a separate defense lacked a legal basis, the instruction was harmless under the circumstances. The court also upheld admission of motion pictures depicting the plaintiff and found sufficient evidence to support the verdict.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not improperly give Instructions Nos. 14 and 15, which quoted applicable Kansas statutes. Even if Instruction No. 16's treatment of violations as negligence per se was erroneous as applied to those statutes, the error was harmless because Instruction No. 20 properly stated the owner's civil liability for permitting an unqualified person to drive, and the evidence supported submission of the defendant's theory.
2. There was no legal basis for submitting unavoidable accident as a separate and independent defense because the evidence did not show an uncontrollable, unforeseeable factor. Nevertheless, the error was harmless and did not warrant reversal.
3. The motion picture was admissible because the photographer's testimony provided a sufficient prima facie showing that it accurately depicted what he observed, and Hayward did not object to its projection or materiality.
4. The verdict for Ginn was supported by ample evidence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court improperly instructed the jury by quoting Kansas statutes concerning the unauthorized operation of a motor vehicle and by characterizing statutory violations as negligence per se.
2. Whether the trial court erred by submitting unavoidable accident as a separate defense.
3. Whether the trial court properly admitted the motion picture of Hayward.
4. Whether the verdict was supported by the evidence.
5. Whether any instructional error required reversal under Oklahoma's harmless-error statute.

Disposition

affirmed