*1 petition prohibition. for writ of We as- original jurisdiction sume on Petitioners' challenging jurisdiction
claims and au-
thority of the District Court. We decline to
issue the writ because we conclude that
District Court made an initial custody child divorcee,
determination at the time of the
although Oklahoma modifica- proceeding was commenced after
simultaneous proceed- Kansas modification
ing, the Kansas court was attempting not
exercisе jurisdiction modification jurisdiction did not have in substantial
conformity with the U.C.C.J.E.A. We de-
cline to original jurisdiction assume
non-jurisdictional challenges to the District Court's order temporary custody because beyond are ordinary seope рrohi- bition, adequate and an remedy exists for
their review. HARGRAVE,C.J., HODGES,
LAVENDER, KAUGER, SUMMERS,
BOUDREAU, WINCHESTER, JJ., concur. OPALA, J., in part, concurs dissents part. WATT, V.C.J., dissents.
Donald F. as father and
next of friend of Gillham, L. minor, Appellant, Plaintiff/
LAKE RACEWAY, COUNTRY corporation, Oklahoma
Defendant/Appellee. 94,058.
No.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
May15,2001.
859
SUMMERS, J.,
us on
question before
T1 The
presented a
thе
whether
against defen-
action
negligencein his
injury suffered
personal
landowner
dant
answer
the
premises. We
defendant's
order
the
We affirm
negative.
defendant, and vacate
directing a verdict
Appeals.
opinionof
the
Gillham, brought
this
Plaintiff, Donald
son, Kyler, who
minor
of his
behalf
action on
attending an automobile
leg while
his
broke
track on June
race at defendant's
The record
years old.
ten
he was
when
of the
during
intermission
the
reveals
onto the
invited
spectators were
the
races
view
and
the race drivers
to mеet
racetrack
among
who
cars,
those
Kyler was
and
track area.
down
walked
gate separating
through a
guests went
area,
and then
the track
spectators frоm
grassy area
sloping
proceeded down
from it
separated
was
track but
led to the
attempted to
Kyler
As
guardrail.
a metal
his
slipped and
he
guardrail,
climb over
while
guardrail
trapped behind
got
foot
guardrail. His
body
over
upper
went
the knee.
just below
tibia was broken
be-
this action on
brought
13 Mr. Gillam
son,
the accident
asserting that
half of
dangerоus condi-
by a hidden
caused
was
or ditch
a trench
Raceway's premises,
was covered
railing which
next
testimony
impaneled
jury was
grass. A
Neither
submitted.
and evidence
given
speсifically
knew
father
Kyler nor his
No evidence
happened.
accident
area
hazardous
allegedly
presented that
he did
Kyler testified
fall.
caused
slip. When
him to
caused
what
not know
he
how
to tell
examination
on direct
asked
leg, Kyler testified:
broke his
Bolles)
gen-
(Mr.
ladies
Tell the
leg.
your
you
jury how
broke
tlemen
the announcer
When
go
down
everyone
announced
go
cars,
we
we asked
look at
down
look, and we went
down
Ardmore,
Bolles,
Bolles, Milor &
R. Brad
spot where
there,
got
Appellant.
OK,Attorney for
and stuff
over
looked
cross,
I was-I
and I slid
through,
MeMillin,
get
you can
Fischl,
how
Bahner,
to see
Culp,
Brent
S.
I slid
it was
down on-I
OK,
Ardmore,
LLP.,
At-
Bahner,
&
Chaffin
guard
in between
I slid down
on.
down
Appellee.
torney for
dealy,
it,
rаil and the hole
between
Also that
in an
my body got-my leg stayed
there,
under
damages
for an
got hung over-my
body
and I
went
negligence,
over
the burden is on the
my leg stayed.
plaintiff to show the
nеgligence,
existence of
was the
On cross-examination
testified as fol-
*3
injury.
cause of the
question
proxi
lows:
mate cause
for
jury
is
unless there is no
(Mr. Bahner)
Kyler, you slipped on
competent
evidence
jury
from which the
grass,
you?
didn't
reasonably
find a causal nexus between
A.
really
I don't-I
injury.
the act and the
A motion for directed
slipped on,
I
really.
verdict
question
raises the
of whether there
Q. Okay. You don't
you slipped
know if
any
is
support
evidence to
judgment
for the
(sic)a hole,
you,
do
sir?
party against
made,
whom the motion is
I
slipрed
hole;
don't know if I
in a
the trial court must consider as true all the
just
I slipped
remember
in something.
reasonably
and inferences
Q. Okay,
but
don't know what it was?
therefrom
non-movant,
favorable to the
A. No sir.
disregard
any evidence which favors the
movant.
Messler v.
plaintiffs
Special
Racetrack
Simmons
demurred to
Gun
Inc.,
35,
1984 OK
17 It is axiomatic that 184 Okl. the mere fact that an occurs carries with it no 84 P.2d 'evidence which not a evidence is of a demurrer denial as to what speculate necessary to it makes grant of a motion to a barrier with- not sufficient is an accident cannot suсcessful- Plaintiff verdict. the issue directed take a demurrer stand court's correction the trial complain as to jury ly for determination.' as fol- further in the evaluation made previously in that And of an error be must lawsuit. plaintiffs 'An inference lows: than something other upon granted, {13 previously On speculation, conjecture or vacated, opinion is Appеals' of a state introduce sufficient District Court judgment of the and the or indicat- with simply consistent facts County affirmed. Carter suggests or which possibility, ing a mere CONCUR T14 ALL JUSTICES fully as reason- leaves equal force and *4 of the non-existence of an inference able OPALA, J., concurring. inference of The negligence. bodily T1 In this rea- and more probable the more must be liability, the theory of on from the to be inference sonable locus prove that his failed to plaintiff-invitee evidence." by the defen was occasioned quo harm Arrington v. also relies Defendant duty gua a status-based dant's breach of 400, in which P.2d Young, 1961 OK in the court's concur I hence possessor. plain- demurrer that defendant's we held today's pronouncement. judgmеnt and where properly sustained tiff's 138, ¶ 3, Henmessee, Rogers speculation as mere more than 1034; Fran v. Saint Sutherland P.2d plaintiff's fall down of proximate cause P.2d Hospital, cis was nо direct stairway, and there 782. of condition the darkened offered stairway the cause. National Tweed v. also 110 See Corp., 1950 OK
Building that actionable APP 30 2001 OK CIV evi by cireumstantial may bе established FUND, TRUST INJURY The MULTIPLE negligence or caus dence, of inference but an Indemnity Fund of Special f/k/a something must be connection al Oklahoma, Administered State more than Fund, Insuranсe Petitioner/Re- State a state of enough to show spondent, possibility awith consistent cireumstances plaintiff failed held that We Pilkington, H. Jerry DEAN and James D. in the absence prima facie case put aon individually representatives ofthe and as condition showing unsafe fall, claimants, The Workers' place of stairway the time and class at and fеll plaintiff slipped Court, Respondents/Peti- mere fact Compensation negligence of owner no
raised tioners. premises. No. 94030. failed instant case
111 In the the cause nеgligence as alleged establish Oklahoma, Appeals of Civil pres- failed to He therefore the accident. case, defendant was No. 1. Division ent grant- the directed to receive entitled 9, 2000. Nov. trial court. 8, 2000. Rehearing Dec. Denied trial court's reversing the 112 In 27, 2001. Feb. Denied Certiorari Appeals placed judgment, prior significance undue
overruling of defendant's saying that goes It without
evidence.