*1 SUTHERLAND, Appellant, John HOSPITAL, FRANCIS
SAINT
INC., Appellee.
No. 51273. of Oklahoma.
Feb.
Rehearing June Denied *2 alcove off the to a “little proceeded
he then a previously seen where he had main door” (at 15). stack of wheelchairs spot- least He floor, unfolded, ted one that was on the and wife, laying wheeled it to the side of his against crutches her bed. orderly took the an hour
After about it was needed (indicating away wheelchair Boudreau, Funston, Broken J. Daniel Bob physi- a and left him patient) for another Arrow, appellant. (12 was low The stool cian’s stool. had no back or arms. high) and inches Breedlove, Brett, Roy C. R.
Thomas
Gotcher,
Givens, Brett,
Doyle Bo-
Jones,
&
For about 15 minutes thereafter he used
Tulsa,
Inc.,
appellee.
gan,
side,
by
pulling
stool
his wife’s
himself
up by the rail of her bed to be able to talk
OPALA, Justice:
with
In course of some “unexpected
her.
litigation, occa-
negligent-tort
In this
movement” he lost his balance when his
hospital prem-
fall on
by
sioned
an entrant’s
slipped off the rail. He then fell
hand
over
ises,
common-
task is to restate familiar
our
fracturing
backward
a vertebra.
liability
possessor’s
principles
law
of land
(and
trial level
ry
and
Flick
[1967]
any genuine issues as to
judgment) to determine
inferences
apply
Crouch, Okl.,
(on hospital’s motion for
them
Weeks v.
therefrom)
to the
780,
Wedgewood
undisputed facts
presented
material facts.
[1976],
if there
256,
summa-
Village,
at the
were
varies with the
plaining
gence
marks
beneficial interest of the
an entrant broadens or narrows with the
presence
for harm
out
Land
of the other
the limit of
injury.1
possessor’s liability
occurring upon
status
Definition of
upon the land.2 This
protection
the entrant com
possessor
in
afforded
in the
negli
approach
law
ever
has been the common
entrant’s wife left
Early
morning
one
sovereignty
immunity
since landlord’s
emergency
treat-
by
home
ambulance
for acts done within the boundaries of his
by
her
hospital.
ment at the
He followed
away
present-day
gradually gave
land
surgical
on a
cart
car and then found her
accountability.3
civil
When modern tort
hallway
area
where
emergency
bed in the
liability,
finally incorporated possessor’s
law
in her
nothing
was
for him to sit on
there
concept
negligence
ap
came to be
waiting
room
presence.
immediate
plied within the restrictive framework of
nearby,
provided,
chairs were
where
short,
relational,
In
duties.4
status-based
was
have been too far from her side. She
law has never seen fit to ex
the common
stay
with her for
pain
in
and he wanted
general negligence (as
principles
tend its
crutches for some time after
comfort. On
they came to be
in the last centu
knee,
fashioned
joints
he
multiple surgeries
hip
govern
prem
harm occasioned on the
standing by
long
ry)
the bed as
as he
remained
endurance,
Reaching the limit of his
could.
ises
others.
359-360,
Marsh,
p.
supra,
H.
Comparative
W.
Marsh,
History
Law of
n.
at
Griffith,
Traps, 41
Invitees,
Trespassers,
Licensees and
L.Q.Rev.
69 L.Q.
Licensees
(1925).
Rev.
Marsh,
supra, n.
Harris, Okl.,
Henryetta
Construction Co.
(1965),
Pau
28 A.L.R.3d
Hitz,
bel v.
339 Mo.
Although
We find this
gence.12
reasoning inapposite
isolated case-law
repudiated
and even
states,6
least two
in at
to our state.
pronouncements
has continued to
approach
common-law
Oklahoma,
5(a)
long
has
been
In
unswerving commitment.7
command our
*3
with the com
recognized as not discordant
us
urged upon
here
not
abandonment
is
Its
appears
This view
well-taken
mon law.13
policy
public
find no
We
by
party.
either
together
5(a)
be construed
because
must
present-
§
to our
it unsuited
reason to declare
(76
6), also
next
§
with the
section
O.S.1971
depart
decline to
and hence
day needs8
1910, which contains a clear
adopted in
from it.
to
effect
that
qualifying
clause
the
seemed to be
Appeals
of
The Court
protection
the
of
from bod
right
“.
.
.
implicit in the broad
impression
of the
that
qual-
to
ily
“subject
.
is
the
.
harm”
legisla
5(a)9 is
76
provisions
§
of
O.S.1971
provided by law
ifications and restrictions
restric
abrogation
the common-law
tive
of
”
Moreover,
supplied).
(emphasis
posses
liability of
negligence-based
tions on
have
the
status classifications
common-law
least,
sors,
authority for con
some
or at
is
hence
statutory recognition.14 We
received
to
from
fining
harm
con
these restrictions
the
to
reaffirm our continued commitment
upon the
distinguished from acts
ditions as
possessors’ liability
concepts
law
of
common
implication
neither
so
land. We hold that
in negligence.
valid.
perceived is
impli-
pass
next
We now
to consider the
the
5(a)
came with
Revised
Section
first
opinion
the
of the Court
cation divined from
text, which
Laws
1910 as
998.
Its
of
§
suggests
one
we must
Appeals.
This
unchanged, was later included in
remains
negligent “acts” different-
treat harm from
5(a)
the Good Samaritan
toto as
into
§
ly
that
from “condi-
which results
Act.10
to the acts we
upon
premises
tions”
the
California,
We
are indeed mindful
principles
general
apply
are free to
the
provision
a
identical
whose laws contain
unhampered by
law
the relation-
negligence
recently
5(a),11
held
the
§
patterns.
ally
duty
structured
that since this broad statute is unmistak-
nor
law
history
serve as
modern case
ably
origin
may
it
Neither
of civil-law
gives support
allowing
the distinction
legislative
repudiating
all
authority
case.15
suggested
which re-
common-law status classifications
O.S.Supp.1978
(1969);
10.
the 1963 amendment
§
76
anno-
5. Comment in 44 N.Y.U.L.R. 426
tation in 32
508.
added to this section the
SAMARITAN
A.L.R.3d
“GOOD
ACT.”
108,
Christian,
70
6. Rowland v.
69 Cal.2d
Cal.
97,
Kenney
Rptr.
(Cal. 1968).
443
v.
P.2d 561
Calif.Civ.Code,
11.
1714.
§
Grice,
High
1970),
(Colo.
Mile
upon premises, occupied the status of an relationship hospital,
invitee.16 No other is claimed qua possessor, was not to have existed. The is not called legally protect bound to its invitee from all to account for its conduct as health service foreseeable risk of harm to be encountered supplier any capacity except or in other upon premises.19 duty Its as invitor possessor. complaints that of land All re extends no further ordinary than to use late to acts and omissions in the negligent care to premises maintain the in a reason management of the equip ably safe condition.20 ment thereon. This require does not that invitee be we Were to fashion here the distinction protected warned of or be otherwise suggested, the result dichotomize in- perils that open are and obvious.21 *4 vitor’s common-law liability separate into rules for distinguished acts as from omis- physical premises The here were no- sions. This would in fact turn the clock where surgical defective. Neither the cart century back a and a half. It would rein- bed, upon which lying, invitee’s wife was regard troduce ancient subtleties in to torts nor the examination stool was shown to be that are “direct (trespass) and immediate” unsafe. orderly’s act of substituting and those that are consequen- “indirect and the low backless and armless stool for a tial” (trespass case). on the Much of this wheelchair did not render the un- us, technical lore disappeared, happily for safe and constitute a hospital’s breach of with the system.17 demise of the writ hidden, duty qua possessor. lurking No or Invitee’s suit impose seeks to liabili peril secret danger followed. Whatever ex- ty, respondeat under superior, both for acts isted or open arose was and obvious. In orderly. omissions of the Had the or fact, position invitee was in a better than derly been joined sued alone or been as a the hospital perceive to appreciate party-defendant, his liability negligence, in danger. It was readily he who admitted he have, if any he for both acts and omissions didn’t feel the stool was unsafe. On the would be the possessor same as that of contrary, he testified that while the stool Thus, an adopt invitee.18 if we here a dis comfortable”, thought was not “to he he tinction between acts and conditions in the “. . could make it” and “. possessor’s care, duty anomaly would would be all the stool.” right there on event, arise. As harm-dealing actor in the orderly would be held to a more restric harm-dealing event did not result duty tive of care for his own tortious acts hospital’s from duty breach of its to invitee. principal respondeat than his superi- under impose liability pos- To here would elevate or. duty sessor’s to an invitee above the exist- ing level and liability
A different rule of make the same as negligent acts negligence maintaining applies patients. and for in con- that which To them the ditions clearly distort degree common law of care the owes is much Co., Hospital, Rogers Okl., Hull v. Newman Memorial 16. v. Cato Oil & Grease supra, p. 20. at Shipman, Pleading, pgs. Common-Law CS- Co., Rogers supra, p. v. Cato Oil & Grease at SS. Land, Okl., Jackson v. 391 P.2d Million, Anthony Company (1964); R. v. C. Busey, (Kan. 18. Lemon v. 461 P.2d Okl., 435 P.2d Restatement, Second, 1969); Torts McVay, 19.Sidwell City Apartments, Buck v. Del su- pra, Green, (Okl. Perry v. In and consistent It is commensurate
higher. 1970) Northrup Montgomery debility.22 cited in or mental physical their with Co., (Okl.1974) Ward & was judgment by summary Disposition summary Court stated: “A motion proper (with in- facts proper. Undisputed judgment, under Rule 13 . . . should them) support unequivocally ferences from concerning any issue be if the facts denied hospital’s want of lia- but one conclusion— conflicting, or if rea raised.are shape bility. The armless backless men, a fair sonable the exercise stool, offending as well as its allegedly might impartial judgment, reach different if, “defects”, properties height, were low undisputed facts concern conclusions from There apparent and observable. readily in such instru ing any issue as set forth Invitee admitted- no hazards. were hidden added). (Emphasis ments.” danger perceive no use of ly could writer, properly In there the view of this Thus, ruling summary on stool. by the remained issues determination motion, did not violate judgment judge trial certain trier the facts as to whether choosing prohibits him from the rule which on plaintiff, an invitee duties were owed to conflicting among differing or inferences premises, plaintiff’s related defendant’s undisputed facts. Weav- admitted or health, position in the apparent state of Jeffersonian, Okl., 569 P.2d Pryor er v. against wife’s leaning wheel-chair [1971], bed, upon made instructions and demands controversy genuine There no was orderly, him defendant’s substitution *5 summary Trial court’s any material fact. wheel-chair, the for the et cetera. stool affirmed. judgment the is than ema- These issues involved more those nating mere of real estate. possession J., IRWIN, J., LAVENDER, V. C. C. A afforded jury trial should have been SIMMS, JJ., BARNES and concur. plaintiff. seems, here, questions are Pertinent it WILLIAMS, HODGES, DOOLIN and opinion Ap- the of raised in the of Court JJ., HARGRAVE, dissent. J.) peals Brightmire, referred to in the (by WILLIAMS, dissenting: Justice opinion majority, of the substance majority What are the relevant circum- respectfully I dissent from the follows: attending incident which have a way thinking, opin- stances the opinion. my To orderly’s the act bearing propriety on the misapprehends alleged ion the factual and decision, demanding the wheel-chair? Were there legal requested basis its to-wit: suggest which would present the motion for circumstances appellee’s sustention of Ap- person necessity be to a the summary judgment. prudent A ease should sum- marily only fully pellant-Sutherland needed the wheel-chair dismissed when warranted safety? ap- the ap- standpoint under the from a Was facts circumstances plicable pearance consideration and demeanor of Sutherland such underlying law. This orderly?2 is what the to mandate as to constitute notice to the prompted Court that, summary judgment are sufficient questions motion for unanswered These “[0]n neces- controversy all inferences and to be drawn to introduce substantial conclusions sary summary underlying facts . must be remove case from Appellee viewed in to the has to sustain light party most favorable treatment.3 failed test, Northrip supra. opposing its burden under the motion.”1 (Section III). Hospital Nursing 2. 49 22. St. OBAJ John's & School of Chapman, A.L.R.2d see 16 A.L.R.3d A.L.R.2d App.Rule entitled to O.S.A. Ch. Refer “Judgment not controverted”. where Facts Jeffersonian, Pryor 1.Weaver (Okl. 1977). the issue to my position that
I reiterate totality history not the
be decided is negli- liability for landholder’s
possessory torts, summary preclusion of a
gent but jury.
trial denied, the Court of should be
Certiorari case tried upheld, and the
Appeals decision stated, As I dissent.
by jury. state that Mssrs. Jus-
I am authorized to Hargrave concur Hodges, Doolin and
tices dissenting views. above
Application of the BOARD OF REGENTS OKLAHOMA the UNIVERSITY OF
OF Utility $7,060,000 Approval of the Bonds,
System Revenue Series
No. 53586. of Oklahoma.
May