Legal Opinion
Auten v. Livingston
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided June 7, 1949No. 33151PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtO’Neal, J.
This action was brought by Winnie Bi Auten, plaintiff, to recover damages for personal, injury sustained when she lost an eye in operating a vulcanizing -machine.
The cause was tried to a jury and a verdict returned for the defendant. This appeal is from the verdict and judgment rendered thereon.
The evidence discloses, without substantial conflict, that the plaintiff was the wife of the owner of a station for the repair of tires and tubes in the city of Tulsa, Oklahoma. She was an employee of her husband and while employed in vulcanizing a tube,' a bolt from the arm of the portion of the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Olds Motor Works v. ShafferCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1911
- Heckel v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1925
- Kentucky Independent Oil v. Schnitzler, AdministratorCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1925
- Crane Co. v. SearsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1934
- Coakley v. Prentiss-Wabers Stove Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Kirkland v. General Motors CorporationSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1974
- Nellie Mae Marker, Administratrix of the Estate of Donald Orvel Marker, Deceased v. Universal Oil Products Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1957
- Maben v. LeeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1953
- Hazelrigg Trucking Co. v. DuvallSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1953
- Bower v. CorbellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1965
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.