Hampton v. Hammons

1 The issues presented concern the sufficiency of evidence to show: (1) negligence per se by violation of Tulsa Municipal Ordinance, Title 2, Ch. 1, ? 2 (d); (2) violation of the state dog-bite statute, Title 4 O.S. 1981 ? 42.1 ; (3) common law negligence; and (4) attractive nuisance. We find that: (1) there are material questions of fact necessitating jury resolution on the issues of negligence per se, statutory recovery, and common law negligence; (2) that although some evidence was excluded which should have been admitted, the exclusion in and of itself did not amount to reversible error; and (3) that the doctrine of attractive nuisance is inapplicable.