Klaus v. Fleming

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Klaus v. Fleming

1956 OK 326, 304 P.2d 990, 1956 Okla. LEXIS 643

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedDecember 11, 1956

Docket36946

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 1956 OK 326 (Klaus v. Fleming) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Klaus v. Fleming, 1956 OK 326, 304 P.2d 990, 1956 Okla. LEXIS 643 (Okla. 1956).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

This action was commenced by Frank N. Fleming against F. L. Klaus and ■ John Chronister, d/b/a Klaus Radio and Television, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff as the alleged result of the defendant’s failure to furnish him proper equipment with which to perform his job. During trial the action was dismissed as to John Chronister and he is not a party to this appeal. The case was tried to a jury who returned a verdict for the plaintiff, upon which judgment was entered. The defendant, F. L. Klaus, appeals.

The defendant argues his appeal under the following proposition:

“The statutes pleaded are not applicable and the trial court erred in overruling the Motion to Strike of defendant and erred in instructing the jury on such inapplicable statutes, * *

[991]*991Thus, those assignments of error in the petition in error not contained in this proposition argued in the brief will be treated as abandoned. Chancellor v. Chancellor, 202 Okl. 389, 214 P.2d 261.

The court’s action in overruling the motion to strike is likewise not open to review for the reason that the defendant failed to include this as one of its grounds for a new trial. Alleged errors must be called to the trial court’s attention in the motion for new trial or they will not be reviewed on appeal. Logan v. Logan, 197 Okl. 88, 168 P.2d 878.

Finally, the defendant failed to properly record his objections to the instructions of which complaint is made. 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. The only exception to this rule is where prejudicial error, erroneous statements of fundamental law, appear upon the face of the instructions. In the instant case the questioned instructions contain no misstatement of any fundamental principle of law. Thus, any latent error is not now open to review. Mason v. McNeal, 187 Okl. 31, 100 P.2d 451; Anthony v. Colvin, 191 Okl. 476, 130 P.2d 819, 145 P.2d 384. Judgment affirmed.

WILLIAMS, V. C. J., and WELCH, CORN, HALLEY, JACKSON and CARLILE, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This action was commenced by Frank N. Fleming against F. L. Klaus and ■ John Chronister, d/b/a Klaus Radio and Television, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff as the alleged result of the defendant’s failure to furnish him proper equipment with which to perform his job. During trial the action was dismissed as to John Chronister and he is not a party to this appeal. The case was tried to a jury who returned a verdict for the plaintiff, upon which judgment was entered. The defendant, F. L. Klaus, appeals.

The defendant argues his appeal under the following proposition:

“The statutes pleaded are not applicable and the trial court erred in overruling the Motion to Strike of defendant and erred in instructing the jury on such inapplicable statutes, * *

[991]*991Thus, those assignments of error in the petition in error not contained in this proposition argued in the brief will be treated as abandoned. Chancellor v. Chancellor, 202 Okl. 389, 214 P.2d 261.

The court’s action in overruling the motion to strike is likewise not open to review for the reason that the defendant failed to include this as one of its grounds for a new trial. Alleged errors must be called to the trial court’s attention in the motion for new trial or they will not be reviewed on appeal. Logan v. Logan, 197 Okl. 88, 168 P.2d 878.

Finally, the defendant failed to properly record his objections to the instructions of which complaint is made. 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. The only exception to this rule is where prejudicial error, erroneous statements of fundamental law, appear upon the face of the instructions. In the instant case the questioned instructions contain no misstatement of any fundamental principle of law. Thus, any latent error is not now open to review. Mason v. McNeal, 187 Okl. 31, 100 P.2d 451; Anthony v. Colvin, 191 Okl. 476, 130 P.2d 819, 145 P.2d 384. Judgment affirmed.

WILLIAMS, V. C. J., and WELCH, CORN, HALLEY, JACKSON and CARLILE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1956 OK 326, 304 P.2d 990, 1956 Okla. LEXIS 643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klaus-v-fleming-okla-1956.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack