Darco Transportation v. Dulen
Oklahoma Supreme Court
922 P.2d 591 (1996)
- Written by Ross Sewell, JD
Facts
Elmer Dulen (plaintiff) and Polly Freeman were hired by Darco Transportation (defendant) to transport goods cross-country. One night, Dulen stopped his truck behind another Darco truck at a railroad crossing. The signal arms malfunctioned and raised early. The first truck crossed the tracks, but the train hit Dulen’s truck, killing Freeman and injuring Dulen. Investigators found Freeman’s body wearing only a T-shirt with injuries primarily on her right side. Investigators observed that Dulen’s pants were unbuttoned, unzipped, and resting mid-hip. The passenger door on Dulen’s truck was intact, but the driver’s side was damaged. Testimony indicated that Dulen’s truck had a sleeping facility and that Freeman slept only in a T-shirt. Dulen told investigators that when the accident occurred, he was having sex with Freeman and she was sitting in his lap facing him. However, Dulen later denied making this statement. There was not enough room between the steering wheel and seat for two people. Darco’s operations manager testified Dulen was properly en route to his assigned destination. The trial judge found Dulen’s injuries occurred in the course of and arose out of his employment and resulted directly from the malfunctioning signal arms. A three-judge panel modified the trial judge’s order by awarding Dulen temporary total disability. The court of appeals sustained the three-judge panel’s order. Darco requested certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Opala, J.)
Dissent
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.