The opinion
HALLEY, Justice
(dissenting).
In addition to the views of Justice JACKSON, expressed in his dissent, with which I agree, I think that the argument of counsel for the plaintiff in his closing was so inflammatory that standing alone would have necessitated a new trial in this case. This statement was made when referring to the employees of one of the defendants:
“They are just a gear in this corporation that grinds people to death. They are just a gear.”
There is no evidence in this case to justify counsel in making such a remark.
In Green Construction Co. v. Lampe et al., 174 Okl. 351 , 50 P.2d 286 , we held a remark improper that was nothing like as inflammatory as the one here.
Similar remarks have been held improper in numerous cases, among which are Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Mangrum, 15 Tenn.App. 518 ; Southwestern Greyhound Lines v. Dickson, Tex.Civ.App., 219 S.W.2d 592 ; Higgins v. Terminal R. R. Ass’n of St. Louis, 362 Mo. 264 , 241 S.W.2d 380 . See also 88 C.J.S. Trial § 189.
The question is raised that proper objection and exception was not made to this argument. To me the argument made by plaintiff’s counsel so flagrantly violated the proprieties of a jury trial that the duty rested upon the judge to declare a mistrial. This statement, which is found in 3 Am.Jur., Appeal and Error, Section 248, p. 33, expresses my views on this matter and is:
“In the exercise of its power to do so, an appellate court will consider questions not raised or reversed in the trial court when it appears necessary to do so in order to meet the ends of justice or to prevent the invasion or denial of essential rights. * * * ”
A new trial is the only way that this case can be properly disposed of.
I dissent.