*1 I377 Appellant, Dorothy RICHEY, LABORATORIES, INC.,
CHEROKEE Appellee. WOOD, Appellant,
Edith Abell LABORATORIES, INC.,
CHEROKEE Appellee.
Nos. 44277.
Supreme Oklahoma.
Oct.
Harry III, Seay Daniel, L. Jr., P. Sam Doerner, Stuart, Saunders, Daniel Lan-& genkamp, Tulsa, appellants. Rucker, Tabor, Hopkins, McBride & B. Tabor, Kirk, Tulsa, ap- W. M. Darwin pellee.
WILLIAMS, Vice Chief Justice. cases, plaintiffs In appealed these two respective from judgments $25,000 their favor in the amount of each in wrongful death arising actions out of airplane Republic, the same crash near Missouri, July on 1959. At the time of decedents, crash, officers or em- ployees of defendant Cherokee Laboratо- ries, Inc., passengers plane were in a being owned was then defendant which trip from flown on a business Tulsa Co- lumbus, Indiana. previously (in 1965) decided involving the same
case which For rea- we herein are concerned. record, sons not stated trial of the appeals cases from arose which the instant delayed was until 1970. *2 to the tempt by Legislature effect is our question of laws conflict The same applicable to whether, it change same and make appeals: under in
presented both plainly unconstitu- exist, these cases would the Mis- to circumstances shown the Nor, ordinarily, ef- will retroactive statutes, with their tional. wrongful death souri opinion dealing with given a cоurt fect be amount recoverable of the limitation an- rule of law rights. The substantive $25,000, applicable. damages to governs in here. nounced Cherokee court de- the trial of these cases In both of certain argue that because Plaintiffs the Mis- of trial that in advance termined in now before evidence the cases additional Wood, applicable. was In limitation souri Cherokee, presented in us which was not plaintiff’s stipulated that thе defendant in that case holding the of Court this $25,000, issue of and the damages exceeded presented question the not determinative of jury, the only to liability was submitted us. in the cases now before Richey, plaintiff. In one found for which Woоd, in de- jury after the trial month they to which refer The evidence summary judg- a motion for fendant filed stipulated presented, offered (either to or of plaintiff’s in the amount in favor ment would, they argue, jus rejected) was sustained. $25,000,which that jury tified a conclusion in these was, negligence at least act of which one the involved The facts of to, proximate of contributed the cause or in the are stated the three cases each of injuries, the occurred in Oklahoma. opinion. Laborato- Cherokee former See al of the view that this was Okl., In ries, Rogers, v. 398 P.2d Inc. leged (failure act to negligence of switch County trial Tulsa that case different auxiliary tanks to tanks from the main the $25,000 limita- that the judge determined Oklahoma) a mere condition was ap- not amount recoverable was on the tion occurring the that other acts later were presented, and plicable, the under evidence рroximate ques cause of the accident plaintiff in a much judgment for rendered agree. tion. We to held the larger amount. This Court contrary appeal ordered the remitti- In of & on case Hunt Firestone Tire v. Co., 1018, to an аmount sufficient reduce Rubber this (1968) tur of Okl. 448 P.2d $25,000. judgment plaintiff syllabus to Court stated: appeals agree us in the now before proximate any inju- “2. The cause of was that all of the evidence Cherokee ry must be the efficient cause which sets appeal. on also introduced now in motion the chain of circumstances argues that the in all Defendant evidence leading injury; negligence to the three and that that cases was the same complainеd merely of condi- furnishes reason, holding this in Chero- possible tion which the was question determinative kee is subsequent independent act caused presented in Richey. Wood injury, the existence of such condi- proximate tion is in- not cause Plaintiffs, conceding while that jury.” fairly until years recent the almost univer City Hemphill Okmulgee also v. See sally accepted this situation was 189, 190, (1938) 183 Okl. 83 P.2d cited that the law of (“lex tort E., approval v. O. G. & etc. Butler delicti”) controls, loсi quite frankly devote 399; 190 Okl. 124 P.2d (1942) most of their to appeal briefs an to this Moore, Meyer 329 P.2d (1958) Okl. change Court to the Oklahoma conflicts of 676, 681. laws rule in that regard and these send cases back for trial under are of the view that the factual dis- Oklahoma wrongful death sought statutes on tinction be made between Chero- issue damages only, with upon no limitation kee and now the cases before us does amount any Laboratories, recoverable. Of at- There (Cherokee course Inc. exist. HODGES, LAVENDER, supra) SIMMS and 398 P.2d (1965) Rogers, Okl. DOOLIN, specially. JJ., concur said: we syllabus, demonstrating occur- evidence “Absent suffi- DOOLIN, in Oklahoma negligence (specially concurring). rence of Justice substantially con- to or amount cient *3 correctly interpret majority If I of accident proximate cause tributing to opinion, recovery it has limited Plaintiff’s death, as decedent’s plaintiff’s causing case, in these' companion cases оf Mis- in the State an accident result of Laboratories, Rogers, Cherokee Inc. v. 398 recovery plaintiff’s souri, amount of (1965), P.2d 520 to the limitation Missouri wrongful for in Oklahoma in action wrongful death in at effect the time under Missouri statutes death of husband the accident ($25,000.00), applying the rule wrongful action creating cause of in conflict of law termed “lex loci delicti.” not to recovery of authorizing and death My colleagues point further out and I con- therefor, by is limited $25,000.00 exceed holding cur in their that the Plaintiff’s ad- stat- in such Missouri fixed the amount rightfully ditional evidence was held utes.” condition”, trial court to create a “mere Cherokee, law was the Missouri Since “proximate and not the cause” of the acci- factual dis- principal applied and since dent. by the found urged was both tinction here Although majority of the rationale by this Court determined opinion such, is not stated as I it to believe condition and of a mere to be in the nature be the time-honored doctrine of De- “Stare proximate cause of the part cisis.” I am convinced that further to al- apply that law involved, also we recovery low a different standаrd of fatal- plaintiffs’ were
here as all decedents possibility cases these or the of an unlimit- Under ly injured in the occurrence. same ed recovery wrongful under Oklahoma’s present of the and circumstances facts unjust death statute would be not invidi- recited, are of hereinabove we ously discriminatory in the facts view of negligence that act of view that no and circumstances of these and com- proximate cause part amounted panion cases. was shown of the accident involved there- and that have occurred Oklahoma my opinion It is that the doctrine of “lex the trial court judgments fore the loci delicti” in interstate tort is out- upheld. should dаy. Appel- moded and has The served its Affirmed. pointed lant has in his brief that out since supra,
our
number of
Rogers,
decision
DAVISON,
IRWIN,
purely
states1 have abandoned the
mechan-
J., and
BERRY
C.
loci de-
BARNES,
ical or wooden
of “lex
JJ.,
concur.
tucky:
Paris,
Armstrong
Armstrong,
Wessling
259
v.
417 S.W.2d
441 P.2d
Alaska:
v.
Beaulieu,
(Ky.1967) ;
1968)
(Alaska
;
265
Beaulieu v.
v.
Maine:
699
Arizona:
Schwartz
1970) ;
;
(Maine
Schwartz,
562,
(1968)
Minnesota: Balts
A.2d 610
P.2d 254
103 Ariz.
447
419,
Balts,
Purcell,
551,
licti”. We
1968,to-wit:
brief:
Principle.
The
January,
General
“Section
was a trickle
"What
today an av-
Rogers was decided is
when
which has
(1)
local
of the state
law
of lex loci delicti.
repudiation
alanche
relationship
significant
with
the most
supreme courts
Why
state
deter-
occurrencе
heavily
down so
come
commentators
rights
in tort.
mines their
liabilities
many rea-
against the rule? There
that the forum
Important Contacts
(2)
sons;
was cited
the chief reasons
one of
determining the state
consider in
will
Inc.,
Airlines,
v. United
Griffith
[416
relationship
significant
most
include:
(Pa.1964):
may choice for between make a itself
principle operation and that of forward may say that
of relation backward. It court, though lat- highest its
decisions of overruled, none
er are law the less there
intermediate transactions. Indeed broadly intimating, too give it them that
. that must ef-
fect; but never doubt been ex- has
pressed that it them if it may so treat
pleased, hardship injustice whenever or thereby
will be averted.” searched Oklahoma Consti- provision
tution and have no found therein prohibit prospective
which would man- overruling
ner of that we choose
follow.3 I therefore would affirm the trial case, over-
court the instant but would *5 prospectively of “lex
loci in all interstate tort delicti”
Oklahoma.
amI authorized to state that Justices
HODGES, LAVENDER SIMMS expressed.
concur in the herein views
FARMERS’ UNION CO-OPERATIVE ROY- ALTY a corpora- COMPANY, tion, Appellant,
Claire B. WOODWARD et al., Appellees.
No. 44622.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
Oct. 1973.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 1973. Schaefer, 17; Process”, Schaefer, Supreme 53 Calif.L.Rev. dal See: Chief Justice of Chicago Policy”, Illinois, L.Rev. “Precedent and “The Control of ‘Sunburst’s’ Law, Prospective Overruling”, 17; Levy, Techniques Uni- Lecturer Columbia Jurisprudence Prospec- Keeton, versity, 631; “Realist of Law L.Rev. Professor NYU 56; Overruling,” Continuity School, of Pa.L.Rev. tive 109 U. Harvard “Creative 490; Cardozo, Torts”, Process. L.Rev. The Nature Judicial Harvard Law Traynor Schaefer, and the Judi- “Chief Justice