 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Medlock v. Admiral Safe Co.9/9/2005
he singular to include plural and vice-versa is consistent with the commonly accepted definition of the word, "any." By judicial decision, " he use of the word 'any' within a statute is equivalent and has the force of 'every' and 'all.'" State ex rel. Porter v. Ferrell, 1998 OK 41, , 959 P.2d 576, 578. Section 1101.1 does not indicate in any manner that it is limited to the singular, and " here a statute is plain and unambiguous and its manifest intention and purpose is clearly shown by the language employed therein, the court is without authority to render a different meaning or construction thereon, in order to avoid an inequality that may arise in isolated cases." In re Assessment of Champlin Refining Co., 1940 OK 67, (3), 99 P.2d 880. (Emphasis added.)
To interpret this statute, which, by both legislative and common law mandates, clearly allows "any" defendant to make an offer to "several plaintiffs," to prohibit such a singular, unapportioned offer turns statutory and common law jurisprudence on its head. The first rationale of Haddock is wrong and should not be followed by this court.
Although candidly admitting " o published Oklahoma case has ruled whether the use of the singular in the statute requires that an offer be made to each plaintiff singly," the Court in Haddock secondly relied on other states' decisions to conclude that requiring separate offers was the best approach. Haddock, 2004 OK CIV APP 42, , 17, 90 P.3d at 597, 598. While a statute requiring apportionment of offers to each plaintiff might be the better policy, such a decision is for the Legislature, not this Court:
When a court is called on to interpret a statute, the court has no authority to rewrite the enactment merely because it does not comport with the court's view of prudent public policy. Also, the wisdom of choices made within the Legislature's law-making sphere are not our concern, because those choices - absent constitutional or other recognized infirmity - rightly lie within the legislative domain.
Duncan v. Oklahoma Dept. of Corrections, 2004 OK 58, , 95 P.3d 1076, 1079.
Because the majority clings to the faulty construction of ยง1101.1 espoused in Haddock, I therefore dissent to Part Two. I concur with Part One of the majority opinion.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|