Holden v. Coussens
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1Opinion of the Court
DOOLIN, Justice.
We hold trial court’s granting plaintiff’s motion for new trial on this comparative negligence verdict was an abuse of discretion. A trial court’s discretion in granting a new trial is not unqualified but it is sound legal discretion to be exercised in accordance with recognized principles of law. 1
In this case the jury returned the following verdict:
“VERDICT
We, the jury, empaneled and sworn in the above entitled cause, do, upon our oaths, find as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s negligence (0% to 100%) 40 %
2. Defendant’s negligence (0% to 100%) 60 %
(1 and 2 must total 100%) 100 %
The…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company v. KingSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1954
- Aronson v. AronsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1970
- Downum v. Muskogee Stockyards & Livestock Auction, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1977
- Bulk Transport, Inc. v. JonesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1976
- St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company v. DavisSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1965
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Woods v. Fruehauf Trailer Corp.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989
- Capshaw v. Gulf Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2005
- Oxley v. City of Tulsa Ex Rel. Tulsa Airport AuthoritySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1990
- Propst v. AlexanderSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1995
- Nail Ex Rel. Nail v. Oklahoma Children's Memorial HospitalSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1985
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.