explaining Oklahoma law only “supports the granting of a new trial” where a jury award is “beyond all measure unreasonable and outrageous”
How later courts described this case
- explaining Oklahoma law only “supports the granting of a new trial” where a jury award is “beyond all measure unreasonable and outrageous”
- “The judge who presides at the trial[;] hears the testimony; observes the witnesses; and has full knowledge of the proceedings during the trial process.... is in the best position to know whether substantial justice has been done.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
TAYLOR, C.J.,
dissenting
The uncontested facts are clear. This roadway was flooded. The Pawnee County Commissioners closed this road and placed 8 foot barricades with two signs warning that the road was closed due to high water. The Decedent ignored all this and proceeded *40 around the large barricade and warning signs and drove into 12 foot deep water and unfortunately died as a result of her own negligence. The highly-charged emotional evidence presented by the Plaintiff somehow moved the jury to assess some liability and damages upon the County. The Plaintiff now wants more money by way of a new trial on damages only. There is absolutely no legal basis upon which a new trial should have been granted. This jury was very generous under the evidence of this case. I agree with the analysis of the Court of Civil Appeals. There should be no new trial.