 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hass v. Money3/2/1993
uld be liable under ยงยง 42.1 and 42.2 as an "owner"; but, Appellees would be liable. In such event the common law doctrine allowing "one bite" apparently would apply in favor of Appellant (but not Appellees) if some other member of the public was bitten and injured. This ignores obvious legislative intent.
In my opinion, the trial court correctly entered summary judgment for the Appellees. The statute allows third parties to sue "owners" in tort. It does not authorize an injured "owner" to sue some other "owner". I would hold that the defense of assumption of risk applies to these facts, as a matter of law.
I respectfully DISSENT.
Page 1 2 3 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|