*1 HART, Individuаlly Per- Emma and as Representative and Heir of
sonal Sole Hart, Janet Sue Hart and Elisha Ruth Deceased, Appellant, ENTERPRISES, INC., JETT an Okla- Corporation, Edgar homa Britton Wallen, individual, and United Fidelity Guaranty Company,
States company, Appellees. an insurance No. 58973. Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
March As Corrected on Denial of
Rehearing Sept. Hammons,
C. Elaine Hammons & Ham- mons, Rеno, appellant. El Meachem, Meachem, E.J. Meachem & Meachem, Clinton, appellees. DOOLIN, Vice Chief Justice. specially heard on Motion to Dis- Appeal.
miss
Appellant, individually
personal
representative, brought an action for the
daughters
her two
result of a collision
betwеen a car driven
Janet Sue
and a truck
Enterprises,
owned
Jett
driven
Brit-
Edgar
ton
Wallen and insured
Fidelity
Guaranty. Appellant’s
States
alleged negligence
Pеtition
on the
Wallen and
entrustment on the
*2
Defendants,
appeal
right
not
her
to
part
Upon motion of
one does
affect
as
of Jett.
agreе.
to the other. We do not
neg-
allegation
the
of
court struck
the trial
to
and
the case
ligent entrustment
allowed
acknowledges
gener
Appellant
the
negli-
the theories of Wallen’s
proceed on
payment
ally accepted rule
of
that actual
a
to Jett.
gence
respondeat superior as
and
person
in
judgment
full to a
authorized to
discharge
operates
of the
receive
which, on
jury
to a
The matter was tried
hоwever,
argues,
judgment.1 She
returned a
of
July
suing
she was
on behalf of two dece
since
Appellant’s
of
the
dents,
two,
she had
of
severable causes
a
daughter, Elisha Ruth
who was
exception
so
action and
came within
to
in the car driven
her sister.
passenger
Engines
the rule as set out in
Janet, however,
jury
the
found
regard
In
to
McConnell,2
provides:
which
negli-
contributorily
been
her to have
92%
“[Tjhere
general
exception
is an
to this
any recovery for her
gent
denied
and
part
the
rule where
reversal of that
of
verdict,
August
Following this
on
death.
judgment
pos-
from
appealed
the
cannot
the
paid Appellant
to
Defendants
sibly
appellant’s rights
affect the
the
$53,678.42as
in full of the
payment
sum of
under
benefits secured or vested
together
pre-judg-
$45,000 judgment
with
judgment
of the
which was allowed
$2,174.67
associated
interest and
as
ment
to become final.”
in
of which
expenses, and
consideration
According
exceptiоn,
to this
when a
a
and Satisfac-
Appellant executed Release
litigant
obtains a
on one
of
cause
Judgment.
theory
recovery,
but
on
aсtion
of
not
Thereafter,
ap-
Appellant brought
this
another,
may accept
then he or she
the
peal alleging
striking
in
of her
other,
error
the
appeal
of the one
the
so
benefit
and
entrustment,
long
possibility
error
there is
allegation of
as
no
outcome
will,
any
of the
new trial
in
and/or
jury
in
to the
and
the court’s instructions
way,
theory
affect that
of action or
cause
findings
in the Jour-
in the
contained
error
accepted.
a
for which
benefit has been
Entry
Judgment.
nal
of
analysis,
final
However in the
we
Appellees have filed Motion to Dismiss
a
nothing
any
find
the record nor
lan
Appellant’s aсceptance of
on
based
in the
and
of
guage
Release
Satisfaction
of
and costs.
the amount
Appellant’s
Judgment
supports
which
cоn
receipt of
dispute
does not
her
acceptance
that she
of
tention
treated
release,
money and execution of the
but
anything less
Appellees’ check as
than full
regard
acts
to the
contends those
were
litigation
final
of this
in its
and
settlement
of
and she
award for the deаth
entirety.3
Examination of
Satisfaction
precluded
maintain-
is
not
from
therefore
Judgment
that Emma
in
of
indicates
Hart
regarding
for errors
this
dividually
personal representative
of
Appellant’s
It
claim
verdict as to Janet.
is
daughters exercised the Release and
both
two,
causes of
prosecutеd
she
severable
nothing
attorney
of the
say
Satisfaction
action,
her ac-
participated.
one for each
and
the opin
also
We are of
who
of
ion that satisfaction of
when
ceptance of
benefits
THEREFORE,
Judgments
Am.Jur.2d
NOW
in consideration of the
§
See: 47
receipt
payment
of
оf said
which
(Okl.1980).
2.
The allowed a I hence accede to the court’s dismissal of for Janet recovery Ruth but no appeal. the instant paid defendants Sue. The is of full. Its release and satisfaction and here.
record below No lies from a shown to released When a have been and satisfied. appellate released is tendered for review, presents hypo- or it but an abstract DAHL, II, Masters Kenneth question.1 thetical Dahl, Kay Appellants, Loretta denies that the v. disallowing for Janet the verdict Oklahoma, Appellee. STATE was Sue’s death included in her release and No. F-85-676. argument satisfaction. This is contradict- plain ed record. Her release Appeals of Court of Criminal Oklahoma. unequivocally satisfaction shows it ex- 15, Oct. 1987. tends to entire than rather merely appellant to some of it. If was relinquish- fraudulently
in fact
induced into
bargained
than she
more
intended or
4.Bateman
1.Bateman
ed frоm
can v.
where
(1935);
satisfied, writ of error will be dismissed. Dun-
appeal will be dismissed
termination,
follow.
Co.,
rar
[1935];
Co.,
29 Okl.
abstract
[1916];
pending
Ratliff, 63 Okl.
Duncan v.
where the
29 Okl.
See
is satisfied and
v.
758,
see
also,
Riner,
Riner,
also,
hypothetical questions