Williams v. Tulsa Motels

result, has As Drllevich judg- registration. period for of its enforcement its prolong the 6,1995 July and judgment as of years from date Oklahoma point ten ment to a § 735 12 O.S.1991 dormancy provisions of probation. released Wa.St. Stock was registration. that date of apply from 6.17.020(4) that: provides is re- Accordingly, instant cause judgment or party order A who obtains further matter and the remanded versed assessment, restitution, crime victims’ proceedings legal obli- court-ordered financial or other gations judgment a criminal pursuant ¶ 25 CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY judgment may or and execute sentence APPEALS OPIN- COURT OF GRANTED. years any subse- time within ten order RE- AND VACATED. REVERSED ION entry judgment and quent to the of the FURTHER PROCEED- MANDED FOR following the years or ten offend- sentence INGS. pro- confinement as release from total er’s chapter 9.94A vided ROW. V.C.J., C.J., SUMMERS, KAUGER, Court, WATT, this presented HODGES, JJ., From the record concur. OPALA 6.17.020(4) $82,- apply not section does J., WILSON, judgment. ALMA concurs judgment registered Drllevich civil 000.00 July statute’s Oklahoma JJ., HARGRAVE, LAVENDER and requires money judgment language dissent. obligation “pursuant rendered be an judgment and sentence” order criminal judgment creditor to extension

entitle the 6.17.020(4). $49,- § privileges offered required part 291.98 restitution as Stock’s properly criminal is more consid- 6.17.020(4), § but not ered under Wa.St. $82,000.00 judgment. civil 6.17.020(4) ¶23 § Application of WILLIAMS, Appellant, Glenn C. of Drllevieh’s

crucial to enforcement however, Washington judgment, because 6.17.020(1) year pe- ten provides § statute MOTELS, Limited an Oklahoma TULSA judg- upon a riod which to execute within Friedman, Partnership; J. General Sam prolonging provisions ment even without Partner; Ryder, Part- L. General Firal 6.17.020(4). 6.17.020(1) pro- §of Section Teekell, ner; Byrum Part- Limited W. vides: Partner, ner; Franks, Limited John (3), (2), provided in Except subsection Oklahoma, Inc., an Oklahoma Cor- Ben (4) section, whose Partner, of this Appellees. poration, General judgment of a of record of court favor No. 89857. court of this state or a district this state rendered, or as- may has been Supreme of Oklahoma. Court signee, an execution issued judg- the collection or enforcement May 18, 1998. years any from the time within ten ment Opinion May Dissenting entry judgment. May Dissent Corrected 6.17.020(1). reg- Drllevich Because

Wa.St. Washington judgment in Okla- istered 6, 1995, years July within ten

homa on original judgment, November time enforceable foreign Askew, Walker, Pray,

Thomas M. Jack- man, Marlar, Tulsa, Appel- Willamson & lant. Richards, Mathis,

Phil R. Rachel C. Rich- Associates, Tulsa, Appellees. ards & HODGES, Justice.

¶ 1 The issue before this Court is wheth- grant judg- er the trial court’s proper. ment was We find that judgement proper.

I. FACTS Williams, plaintiff, 2 The Glenn C. Holiday Inn in Tul- guest at the Holidome

sa, Oklahoma. The Holidome is owned Holidome, leaving the defendants. While a staircase. At the bot- Williams descended stairs, make a tom of the Williams had to to exit Holidome. About three or turn turn, steps mop- four after the a maid was placed ping the floor with her service cart her and in front of an ice machine. beside ¶30, 6, Hospital, Municipal pass between the man started When Williams fell, machine, appeal, slipped he 824. On the ice cart and “rely opposing appeal the motion cannot on injuring himself. any that is referred to fact material against the filed suit owners 3 Williams in included the written statement.” Okla. or injuries resulting for his the Holidome of 13(b) (1991). 2, app. ch. rule Stat. tit. trial The court rendered sum- from this fall. defendants, in favor of the mary judgment III. ANALYSIS danger from wet

finding floor that the The Court of Civil open and obvious. was ¶ undisputed 6 It is that Williams reversed, relying on a in statement Appeals McKinney a invitee. See v. was business deposition that the maid saw Williams’ ¶88, 8, Harrington, 855 P.2d 1993 OK and moved coming down the stairs Williams duty is “exercise 604. The of the invitor to pass between service that he could so injury a prevent care to to busi reasonable machine; a fact not relied on ice cart and the Hynson, 1993 Taylor ness invitee.” OK Further, in the trial court. by Williams ¶ 16, The invitor has step- that the maid’s did not assert Williams protect against open and no obvious him to of mislead the condition ping aside ¶88, 9, dangers. McKinney, 1993 OK allege did not even the floor. Williams rule, ago long P.2d at out in the 604. The set lead him to believe the the maid’s actions Harman, City Tulsa v. case dry. floor was -, 299 P. and reaffirm 148 Okla. ¶ Appeals held that The Court Civil Million, Anthony in C.R. Co. v. ed persons might ¶ conclude that “reasonable 116, 117,provides: standing mop a employee, with while Motel’s ordinary all or invitee assumes normal hand, patron to possibili- should alert premis- upon risks attendant the use of the floor, employee ty of a wet es, occupant and the owner or is [not] of the cart to make ‘moved to the side injury resulting liable for to an invitee pass might could pathway’ so Williams danger from a which was obvious or signal by employee as a construed should have been observed the exercise traverse, masking thus the area was safe ordinary care. petition The defendants filed the hazard.” certiorari, petition In for certiorari. 7 It clear from is assert that Court Civil the defendants or material that Williams knew should have addressing Appeals the issue of the erred known that floor was wet. Williams tes stepping aside let of the maid’s effect away tified: “I turned stairwell did not as- pass because Williams Williams door, walking you toward the outside started court that he was sert the trial misled know, enough proximity close to the end it’s stepping aside. the maid’s of the stairs that there was room take steps, obviously

three or four I could see and, know, you her and the cart there was II. JUDGMENT SUMMARY area, going and I path between that area, spot Summary hit a wet judgment proper is head went “I think I genuine down.” Williams then testified: is no issue of material when there actually in the mopping her area that we app. rule 13 saw fact. Okla. Stat. tit. ch. (1991). through....” moving party charged about to walk with were deposition testimony, stated that he showing genuine issue of material Williams’ that no he step so could on the he saw the maid aside facts exist. Id It is then incumbent pass. falling, Williams cart Before saw party opposing the motion submit writ holding mop. by evidentiary maid accompanied and the who ten statement he even thinks saw maid actual which the Williams material as to material facts Id; ly mopping the floor. If Williams saw the dispute. Fowler v. Nor- contends are aside, step floor, maid he open must have seen her be- danger. and obvious The trial Thus, fore he fell. Williams either knew correctly court rendered in favor of dangerous should have known of the condi- the defendants. The Appeals Court of Civil n floor. in finding controversy erred based on the moving maid’s aside to pass allow Williams to danger 8 It is clear that the of the wet rely because did Williams on this faet in open floor was and obvious and Williams opposing his statement the motion for sum- danger knew of the when he chose to walk on mary judgment. Further based on the rec- the wet floor. The defendants not lia were appeal, ord on genuine there was no issue of ble to injury resulting Williams for an from a opinion material faet. The of the Court of danger which was obvious or should have Appeals vacated, Civil and the been ordinary observed in the exercise of McCall, the trial court is affirmed. care. McClendon v.

¶ 13, Thus, summary judgment proper was for the defendants. GRANTED; CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY ¶ though 9 Even the trial court cor- was COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS’ OPIN- rendering judgment rect for the defen- VACATED; ION TRIAL COURT’S dants, the Court of Appeals Civil reversed. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. surmised, Appeals The Court of by Civil ¶ HODGES, LAVENDER, SIMMS, aside, the moving maid’s Williams could have WATT, JJ., HARGRAVE and concur. been believing misled into that the floor was court, safe. In the trial Williams did not ¶ KAUGER, C.J., WILSON, J., even infer by that he was deceived the maid’s part; concur in part. dissent in stepping rely aside. Williams did not on this part fact or this deposition of his in his SUMMERS, V.C.J., join “I Justice written statement responding to the defen- Opala opinion insofar as his relates to Okla- summary dants’ motion for judgment to show summary judgment I, homa jurisprudence. that a controversy substantial existed. A too, deny certiorari.”, J., Opala, would dis- review of the record before this Court shows sent. danger open that the was and obvious. Fur- ther, appeal support record on does not OPALA, Justice, SUMMERS, with whom finding genuine is a there issue mate- Justice, joins Vice Chief in part, dissenting. rial fact as to whether Williams was misled by stepping the maid’s aside. ¶ 1 today The court vacates Court Appeals’ opinion Civil [COCA] and affirms Appeals 10 The Court of Civil reversed summary judgment relying on a faet for the dispute defendants in a —whether premises Williams was deceived stepping liability maid’s case. COCA’s reversal of aside. Because Williams’ written statement judgment rests on its conclusion that opposition to the motion for .in conflicting inferences be drawn from the rely fact, did not on or refer to this probative materials in the record which shed proper it was not a basis on which the Court light “open on the and obvious” character of Appeals of Civil to base its decision. Okla. offending Basing today’s hazard. pro- 13(b) (1991). app. tit. eh. Stat. rule independent nouncement on an analysis of appeal, on Based the record on there is no record, the court holds that COCA erred fact, genuine issue material by relying evidentiary on proper. for the defendants was plaintiff expressly did not invoke in his trial See id court in response brief summary judg- to the

ment motion. IV. CONCLUSION ¶2 I cannot accede to the court’s view. ¶ 11 The Our sole task on defendants did not breach a certiorari review duty against to warn opinion Williams the wet COCA’s conformity to the record hallway the floor. He fell in a between applicable Adverse sum- law. His ice cart. due when his machine the maid’s

mary is not movant’s relief deposition that he did not know include a reference to states adversary fails to upon mopping until he came from the maid had been undisputed critical divinable immediately” as he parties. her. He saw her “almost Just offered materials standing do, at the appellate taking so fall. She was court must too the nisi mop in her hand. (pre- affirmative other end of the cart with tribunals materials, evidentiary Spirgis According his by the standards Circle scribed Inc.1) actually her Stores, assay legal believed he first “saw to review and Williams K evidentiary mopping [he] in the area that about materials ten- sufficiency of all heard) through.” summary process to the walk When she saw dered “coming steps”, “moved to him down she sought. relief [for him] side of the cart to make ¶3 correctly determined COCA pathway door.”4 had failed to sustain [movants] defendants summary judg- gave 5 The trial court probandi produce their onus —to opinion offending ment to the defendants. COCA’s would unveil de- material that dispositive pressed hazard and The issue now open-and-obvious an reversed. fect ma- undisputed on certiorari whether the its existence as an establish of- single terial will an inference that the supported by a which inference —that fending deceptively had theory. Acting a only the defect defendants’ favors appearance. reversal rests aegis process, trial innocent COCA’s under the favoring abridge party’s a its conclusion that an inference judges powerless to on are presence of in the by jury;2 nor an actionable condition right a trial constitutional quo could be drawn from undis- they the essence Oklahoma’s locus can alter Because I am convinced that principles governing puted the merits facts. common-law view, I liability supports It is for these the record COCA’s would premises claim.3 today’s opinion deny I from certiorari. reasons that recede judgment. and from the court’s

II I

¶ THE OF SUBSTANTIVE NORMS OF OKLAHOMA’S COMMON LAW GOV- THE ANATOMY LITIGATION ERN PREMISES LIABILITY ¶ plaintiff, C. Williams The Glenn relief, [Williams], injured sought on an invitee Tulsa Motels while arguing require does not that it business the law [Tulsa Motels] the defendants’ descending guests against an premises. protect open-and-obvi- After staircase inn, freshly mopped floor.5 in the direction of ous hazard —a turned Williams “conflicting door, responded infer- spot" “hit a and landed Williams wet an outside (approved require 5.The law does not the landowner to 1. 1987 CIV APP 743 P.2d 682 OK Court). dangers publication by Supreme protect an from which are so invitee apparent readily one would and observable that reasonably expect right them to be Hen discovered. on Oklahoma's to trial 2. For discussion Harris, ryetta by juty, Construction Co. v. 1965 OK Part IV see infra. 522, 531; Saint Francis 408 P.2d Sutherland v. Inc., Hospital, 1979 OK 595 P.2d common law a discussion of Oklahoma's 3. For (the ordinary duly prem governs liability, to use care to maintain premises see Part II infra. reasonably in a safe condition "does ises require an warned or ... other invitee be deposition quoted is from Williams' text open protected perils from are and [be] wise testimony, the mov- which was attached obvious”). ants' and.nonmovant's below. briefs danger” totally partially enees could be drawn from the facts and den need not be (1) circumstances evidence” as to whether obscured vision nor be withdrawn from “dangerous walkway sight; phrase condition óf the had is used to describe a condi (or harmless) deceptively appear- presenting innocent deceptively ap innocent (2) ance,” dangerous pearance safety [the “its condition’s] which masks a hidden (3) anticipated” danger.10 openness extent could not be and of a hazard at a “peril open quo depends encountered was an and obvious ability locus in on the entrant’s danger.”6 perceive, appraise appreciate presence danger of' point critical Williams, undisputedly an invitee premises time.11 If a defect is shown to have premises.7 on the defendant’s Tulsa Motels deceptively appearance, had a innocent (a) duty ordinary owed him a to exercise care question open whether it was and obvious is dangerous to disclose the existence of de jury.12 for the fects, owner, though known to the unlikely by were to be discovered the invi harm Whether occasioned a defect (b) keep premises tee objec- a rea is actionable must be measured sonably reception safe condition for the of.its tive standard of due care. The law’s test is duty visitors. This extends to conditions and whether under like or similar circumstances ordinary prudent person instrumentalities which are the nature of have been would snares, dangers, traps, hidden like.9 able to see the hazard in time to avoid premises liability, this rule of harm.13 Within “hid For the case now the court before (a) Asher, By ropolitan Ministry, relies Williams v. Town 1997 OK ford 45, 51, J., (Opala, Entry concur status determination is critical in a (b) Travis, ring) premises liability Healey Jack Linen Service v. case because the law’s expands care that an owner must exercise 927-28. Williams contracts) in accordance with an entrant's status following Byford, supra directs us to the text in premises. Byford, supra on the note 6 at 51 52 and 54: J., (Opala, concurring). open "Whether harm from an and obvious de- depends objective fect is actionable on the stan- Nicholson, Pate, Spears, 8. Brown v. i.e., dard due whether under similar or care— 319, 321; Henryetta Construction ordinary prudent person like circumstances an Co.,supra note 5 at 531-32. would have been able to see the defect in time ** * being injured. to avoid This defense Brown, supra, 9. note 8 at 322. (alleging "open an obvious" defect and "contributory negligence") clearly ques- raises law, 10. At common a “masked hazard” on the jury." (Emphasis original). tions for premises presents jury question. a It a unveils Service, 927-28, Healey supra In Jack Linen legal condition different in characteristics from following Williams relies on the text: open-and-obvious Henryetta defect. Construc- general physical might “While the condition be Co.,supra note 5 at 531. actor, particular familiar to the a risk from the nevertheless, known defect could under the J., Byford, supra, (Opala, 11. note 6 at 52 concur- occasion, given incapa- a circumstances of be Co., ring); Henryetta supra note 5 at Construction If, .here, appreciation. conflicting ble of as 531; Service, Healey supra Jack note 6 at Linen may be drawn inferences circumstances facts 927-28. in evidence as to whether offending 'deceptively did a inno- hazard certiorari, opinion Judge In COCA'S 12. now on appearance’, cent or its extent could not be Goodman, author, aptly described offend- anticipated, neither the trial court nor this ing quo defect at the locus in as a "masked may peril court declare that the was obvious hazard”. recovery apparent precluded and that is as question a is one matter law. J., Byford, supra (Opala, for note 6 at 52 concur- jury... (Emphasis supplied). ." Co., ring); Henryetta supra Construction note 5 at 531; Service, Healey supra Jack Linen note 6 at catego- property 7. Real entrants fall into three Failure to but obvious haz- remove known licensee, trespasser, ries: and invitee. The terms prem- alteration ards or reconstruction licensee, gradu- trespasser, duty and invitee denote a ises is not a breach of the landowner's to an Hennessee, ranking represents degree Rogers of benefi- ated invitee. 1033, 1034; pérsoñ’s City Apartments, owner has in another v. Del cial interest an Buck Inc., presence property. OK 431 P.2d on his Pickens v. Tulsa Met- (as of-way or another an act of frustration proof came to be to element that critical otherwise) interpreted or it could as an be by the material which supplied generally crossing. for a It is indication safe stepping maid to side the motel shows significance jury a to what determine pathway cart, pointing a for as if reasonably be ascribed a motorist’s passage between the cart use a plaintiff to signal.15 hand the machine. ice Ill ¶ clearly sup- probative materials 10 The of COCA’s assessment correctness port the (AS ¶ 13 SUMMARY PROCESS STATE the standards the record. Under IN FROM THAT DISTINGUISHED (as distinguished from the govern the state COURTS) NOT AL- FEDERAL DOES federal) powerless summary process, we are THE TRIAL TO LOW JUDGE of the nisi disturb COCA’s reversal TENDERED WEIGH THE PROOF judgment. opinion Its rests BY MATERIALS PROBATIVE acceptable evidentiary substitutes. ¶ 14 The norms conduct of comprise adjective regime Its law. process changes no substantive norms in Oklahoma ¶ Analogy To Be Drawn To 11 The law, unwritten, statutory governs or Accident Cases Automobile liability; party’s nor it a premises does affect by jury. right hazard introduced constitutional to trial While 12 The masked judicial functionary may, a federal court quo is akin to maid’s at the locus conduct fashion, weigh probative materi- limited an- when a motorist motions to that created jury give if a rational would als determine (or pedestrian) that it is safe other driver (trial plaintiff,16 a state or a verdict to the (or cross) the road latter to enter by vastly appellate) governed is differ- Although at common law motorist ahead. presubmission ent standards.17 signal generally has warn no pedestrian safely guide another A. street), voluntarily one under- across a when Summary 15 State Process task, required to do the actor takes such signaling summary process motion carefully.14 A motorist’s 16 The so focus state plaintiff might prove sign yielding right- not on facts able might be either prompted proceed § Re- driver and the latter into 14. Restatement of Torts (Second) gives a truck as an illustration driver area where his car was struck cle); another vehi statement SEPTA, 204, following signals Reilly by Reilly car that it is safe to who to a v. 507 Pa. 489 proceeds signal 1291, (1985)(the pass. a car In reliance on that A.2d 1295 bus driver sounded oncoming vehicle. The collides with plaintiff pedestrian and waved his horn subject to signaling principal is truck driver’s of a and into the across the street front bus passing liability injured occupants vehicle); oncoming path of an v. Hol (1961). Armstead (4th ed.) Prosser, Law of Torts vehicle. See also bert, 582, 43, W.Va. 122 S.E.2d 44 146 (if gratuitously signals 343 driver 56 truck Zeller, 35, Pa.Super. 521 But Askew v. 361 cf. may safely pass, will a car it "he behind him that 459, (1987); v. A.2d 462 Shank GovernmentEm proper care and be liable if he fails to exercise 903, Co., (La.App. ployees Ins. 390 So.2d 905 results”). injury 34, 1981); Spampinato, 278 A.2d Dix v. Md. 358 237, Row, (1976); Van v. 175 Ohio St. 239 Jura 199, Johnson, 38, P.2d v. 183 Ariz. 899 15. Smith 41, 536, Cook, (1963); v. N.E.2d 538 Devine 191 Cunningham (App.1995); v. National 205-206 1073, (1955); 134, 3 2d 279 P.2d 1078 Utah 832, Industries, Ga.App. 331 S.E.2d Service 174 Bros., 25, Wray, 221 Va. 266 S.E.2d Nolde Inc. v. Burke, 899, (1985); Lindsley v. 189 901-902 882, (1980)(the signal reasonably be 884 cannot 700, 158, 704-705, Mich.App. N.W.2d 161 474 yield interpreted anything than a other 138, (1991); Ringwelski, 362 Mich. 106 Sweet v. 742, courtesy). right-of-way gesture (1961); Spilman, 251 Thelen v. N.W.2d 700, (1957); Miller v. Minn. Watkins, 86 N.W.2d III(B) 16. See Part standards infra (Mo. 1962); Riley v. 355 S.W.2d summary govern process. federal Education, 223 N.Y.S.2d Board 15 A.D.2d (1962); Langer, Vogelv. 131 Pa.Cmwlth. III(A) summary infra, pro- (1990) (a state 17. See Part bus driver 569 A.2d signals cess. used hand to communicate with another (ie., legal sufficiency applies at trial of evidence when the court entertains defen- n adduced), that could be but rather on wheth- plaintiffs dant’s demurrer evidence.22 materials, evidentiary er the viewed as a passing demurrer, When on a defendant’s (a) whole, undisputed show facts on some or evidence; weigh plaintiffs cannot (b) issues, sup- all material which facts will conflicting proof disregarded all is to be port single but a inference that favors the plaintiffs accepted evidence must be as true. quest Summary pro- movant’s for relief.18 proof support If there plaintiffs is special procedural cess —a track to be con- claim, its elements must be submitted to a acceptable probative ducted the aid of with jury.23 undisputed substitutes19 —is a search for ma- support single terial facts that would but a Summary Process Is Not Another

inference in the movant’s favor. It is a Adjudication Form of That Fol- Will identifying isolating method for nontria- Nonmoving Party’s low A Default issues, defeating ble fact not a device for opponent’s right by jury. Only trial undisputed 19 The critical fact evidentiary may entirely material which evidentiary Williams’ (upon materials testing by eliminate trial some or all reversal) COCA relies for deliberately is dis provide legitimate issues will regarded in today’s pronouncement. Plain summary relief, nisi use punished tiff rely for his below failure part. in whole or in All inferences to be snippet on a of the record which COCA drawn from the materials must dispositive appeal. deemed this there light be viewed in the most favorable to the plain path process error. The nonmoving party.20 The function of sum- does not lead to a default mary process stage is not to set the for trial emphasize rests on a nonmovant’s failure to affidavit, but to afford method of sum- (or challenge) materials that can then be marily terminating deciding a case some taken as true.24 Even defendant’s uncon issues) only questions of its when of law are not, ipso facto, tested motion will entitle the tendered.21 sought. Spir movant to the relief Stores, very gis v. K governs 17 The same Circle Inc.25 that— test Okla- teaches summary adjudication process entering summary homa’s also before —the Co., Com'rs, Hulsey County v. Mid-America Ins. 21. Russell v. Board Carter Preferred 492, 503; OK 936 n. 15. An order that County, 1997 OK 952 P.2d Bowers grants summary disposes solely relief of law 312, 316; Wimberly, v. questions. It is hence reviewable de novo. An Co., Stuckey Young Explor. appellate plenary, indepen court claims for itself authority dent and nondeferential to re-examine legal rulings. a trial court’s Kluver v. Weather Co., 27, 22. Roach v. Atlas Ins. 1989 OK 769 Auth., 85, 1081, Life Hospital 1993 OK 859 P.2d ford 163. summary adjudication pro 1084. Oklahoma’s cess is similar but not to that identical followed judicial system. Regina in the federal See Salve Roach, supra 23. at note 22 163. Russell, 225, 231, College v. 499 U.S. 111 S.Ct. . 1217, 1221, (1991) 113 L.Ed.2d 190 24. 12 O.S.1991 688. " ‘Acceptable probative substitutes’ are those may 'evidentiary be used as materials' in supra respond 25. See note 1 at Failure to 6.84. summary process adjudication." the of Jackson judgment. does not result in a confession of At a Hospital, v. Oklahoma Memorial 1995 OK admit, contest, maximum, it will without all un- 35; Holman, Gray 909 P.2d 773 n. v. 1995 disputed facts in the movant's ‘‘statement” which (quoting OK 909 P.2d n. 16 from support only favorable inferences from the mov- Inc., Seitsinger v. Dockum Pontiac acceptable evidentiary ant’s substitutes. The Leitner, 1080-81); 894 P.2d v. Davis judicial Spirgis-mandated is not consideration OK 926-27. confined to of the movant's state- examination ment; Beller, evidentiary it must extend to the entire 20. Carmichael v. 1051, 1053. material in the case. (or masking) the carefully probative examine the about-to-be-encountered judge must freshly-mopped, slippery of a surface. hazard in case on file to of the record content evidentiary appears, material While Williams’ (1) the movant’s materials ascertain measure, contradictory spots some controversy —he as to the no show substantial disarmingly obviously uneoached and (2) dispositive facts and facts material it for powerless are condemn candid —we by evidence. The can be shown admissible specific plaintiffs lack nisi reliance of be legal soundness is to tested not motion’s by snippet used reversal on the critical for prius brief, advocacy a nisi by lawyer’s COCA. sufficiency eviden- the tendered but of short, material re- evidentiary 22 In tiary disposition materials (2) (1) plus an danger a masked veals short, In Williams’ to re- made.26 failure maid’s) (the body move- agent’s affirmative prius by precise spond at nisi reference step onto the guest ment that invites parts probative materials will the' critical an quo. appel- locus in Corrective relief enough quest to sustain the movants’ not helpless captive not a late tribunal is tool evaluating judgment trial. When sans for victim) may lawyer’s strategy choice summary judg- Tulsa Motels’ demand for (or overlooked) pedaled the critical have soft ment, duty-bound the trial If part of a record. there in fact evidentia- independent make an examination ry supportive of inference in an record to deter- content plaintiffs favor of the claim—which inference presence of to de- mine the nontriable facts undisputed from facts —it is be drawn the claim. feat appellate court’s reverse jury and remand cause resolution. ¶ Analysis of Record B. ¶ 21 to infer from the act It is reasonable Summary Judgment Process mopping quo locus in 23 Federal of recent slippery. might the floor have been summary judg Gauged by the federal reasonable, equally inference is opposite, and “trilogy” ment standards —refined presence that while the maid with up Supreme U.S. teach made Court’s mop in hands Catrett,27 her would alert Williams ings Corp. Anderson v. Celotex floor, Inc.,28 slippery possibility Liberty Lobby, of a wet and hence and Matsushita Elec Industry tric v. Zenith Radio fact, when combined with the maid’s Corp.29— premises liability might not claim Williams’ inviting body (stepping to the side movement up pass legal hence end in sum muster and path- if pointing to a correct cart mary for the defendant. way) give would a casual observer an indica- ¶25 passage in the direction indicat- trilogy safe announced Court’s 1986 ed, determining effectively diverting precise thus the exis- attention standards summary judg- Spirgis, supra to defeat the motion note 1 684. cient short, if the issue is one on which ment. if, proof, does bear movant the burden of 317, 321, U.S. S.Ct. discovery adequate passed, has after an time for (1986). Celotex marked a shift in L.Ed.2d showing respondent fails to make proof summary practice. the burden of in federal to establish the existence of element sufficient There, widow sued a for the manufacturer case, summary judgment is the essential death of her husband. The Cel- asbestos-related due. movant's summary judgment Corporation otex moved for produce evidence based on the widow’s failure 242, 2505, 28. U.S. 106 91 L.Ed.2d 202 477 S.Ct. exposed prod- been to its that her husband had (a (1986) publisher author and moved for sum- company argued widow's ucts. The that the brought mary judgment against in a suit libel hearsay. response of consisted inadmissible by non-profit organization). a them summary judgment that would be Court found 574, 1348, failed, adequate L.Ed.2d 538 29. 475 U.S. 106 S.Ct. 89 if the widow after mandated (the (1986) discovery, a case present defendants in civil antitrust time for evidence of matters summary judgment against plain- the proof. for The case moved she had the burden which tiffs, alleged had en- who that defendants to a circuit court to determine remanded predatory pricing gaged conspiracy). ain she submitted was suffi- whether the evidence

1291 Matsushita, genuine a issue. tence rial issue. Underscored notion that fact cases, opened first trilogy of the the door not all “genu- conflicts constitute degree judicial to a disputes Nonmoving parties much-increased discre- ine” of fact.33 handling genuine can a quests judg- by pro- for establish of fact issue Lobby Liberty a ment.30 further a bative material extended would be sufficient jury” “reasonable judge’s to return allowing federal discretion a verdict favor nonmoving party.34 directed-verdict standard to assist in deter- mining genuine of a existence material ¶ 26 Commentators have noted that Liberty Lobby Mat- issue.31 In and post-1986 process federal summary consti- sushita the Court it more for a made difficult judiciary’s tutes a intrusion into an area for- nonmoving party having per- the burden of — merly exclusively viewed almost within the at probative suasion trial —to meet its onus jury’s province.35 According writer, to one process.32 summary judgment The former expansive Liberty Lobby teachings raise opinion requires inquire judge the trial grave litigant’s concerns about civil consti- jury reasonably whether could find right jury tutional to a trial.36 ” “clearly convincing evidence partic- as to a rejected ular issue. The the notion Court IV the nonmovant could avoid ¶ 27 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRI- simply by its meet burden AL JURY IN A BY CIVIL CASE showing the mere existence of “some” factual UNDER OKLAHOMA LAW parties. Rather, dispute between the nonmoving party identify must Today’s summary judgment analysis 28 factual dispute genuine a mate- involves impermissible judicial constitutes inter- weighed 30. The Court in quantity Matsushita the evidence "is caliber to allow of insufficient ' it, plaintiffs' before concluded that claims were a rational actual malice finder of fact find" implausible, required convincing them to for- "come clear and Aere evidence can be no 254, persuasive genuine support ward with more evidence to issue of fact. Id. U.S. at 477 106 necessary.” (emphasis supplied). their claim than would otherwise be S.Ct. at 2513 For the first Matsushita, 29, 587, time, supra equated 475 106 determining note U.S. at the Court Ae test genuine at 1356. S.Ct. dispute whether a factual exists with the granting a test for directed verdict at trial. Id. 251, 477 106 U.S. at S.Ct. at 2512. Liberty Lobby 31. In the Court stated that “judge's weigh function is not himself to trilogy rejected The 1986 has been in several evidence determine truth of the matter states, Alaska, among appear to be genuine but determine whether there is a issue Indiana, Kentucky, Wyoming. Texas and Moffatt 28, 249, Supra for trial.” 477 U.S. note at Brown, 939, 1988); (Alaska Ches words, at In other S.Ct. 2510-2511. Inc., Indianapolis Newspapers, ter v. 553 N.E.2d sufficiency evaluate must the evidence 137, Bandido's, (Ind.App.1990); 140-141 Inc. v. weighing credibility. at without Id. 477 U.S. Co., Inc., 324, Journal 575 N.E.2d 326- Gazette 255, 106 S.Ct. at 2513-2514. Steelvest, (Ind.App.1991); Inc. v. Scansteel Center, Inc., 476, Service 807 S.W.2d 482-483 Liberty Lobby, supra note at 477 U.S. Brand, (Ky.1991); Casso v. S.W.2d 556-557 106 S.Ct. at the Court stated that (T Haller, 989); Parker v. ex.1 “[t]he mere existence scintilla evidence in (Wyo.1988). Supreme 376-377 Court of plaintiff position s will be insuffi- espouse trilogy Texas based its refusal to on a Similarly, ...(Emphasis supplied). cient provision state identical constitutional almost Matsushita, supra note 475 U.S. at 19, Okl.Const., §2 infra that in Art. note 37. stated that S.Ct. the Court in order Casso, supra counterpart at 556-557. The Texas trial, genuine nonmoving establish issue right of the cited section states that of trial "[t]he simply "must do more than that there show inviolate(4)27” by jury remain Art'. 1 shall metaphysical some doubt as to the Tex.Const. facts.” Comment, Hotsenpiller, 35. Dan Anderson v. W. Liberty Lobby, Liberty Lobby, supra note Inc.: Federal Rules Decision or U.S. Case, U.Colo.L.Rev.933, S.Ct. at First Amendment 953-55. Liberty Lobby, supra note if 34. teaches that supra nonmoving party’s present Hotsenpiller, 953-54. the affidavits 36. note 35 at 1292 courts, fact-finding binding It in it process. in vio- dence is indeed federal the

vention right summary adju- plaintiffs process fundamental-law does not affect the of lates the 2 jury under the standards of Art. in courts. Because the by trial dication the state 19, keeps § That section “invio- Okl. Const.37 Seventh Amendment is unenforceable drawing them, the utterly common-law norms for against late” the the states remain free the triers line at which submission to is its restraints.41 Because these standards are party’s due. constitution, they in state can- enshrined the V abrogated abridged) by (impaired or

not judicial legislative or action.38 SUMMARY system, in 29 In contrast to Oklahoma’s Judgment may 30 not for the be entered jury right the to a trial is federal courts summary process the movant unless trial by Amendment to the governed the Seventh judge independently the has examined rec- primary purpose of Constitution.39 The U.S. ord and determined an of material absence quite is not the the Seventh Amendment issues submissible the trier. When keep § It in that Art. 2 19. is to same as of COCA has made record’s assessment the common-law distinction effect between prius summary judgment nisi reversed jury. the the duties of the court and those of error, legal is this court’s role on certiorari by Except the federal constitu- as modified testing appellate limited to decision for itself, jury right by trial conformity juris- to the law and to the record. Its English it in the 1787 frozen as stood probative function is not to recomb the mate- prudence. trilogy’s 1986 reformulation imposing rials a view to on the nonmov- summary judgment with doctrine traditional rigid conformity position argu- in significant departure from the ant to his marks a U.S. past pressed ments on the trial court. Supreme Court’s Seventh-Amendment Because jurispru- appellate the latter’s nisi reliance on construction.40 While Williams’ 19, States, right. § pertinent of Art. 2 Okl. to the as Tull v. 37. The terms claimant United Const., 412, 418, 1831, 1835, provide: 481 U.S. 107 S.Ct. 95 (1987). (or 365 If the claim its L.Ed.2d histori- by jury right be and "The trial shall remain 1791, counterpart) equity jury cal in (Emphasis supplied.) was one inviolate. ...” required trial not under the Seventh Amend- 509, Swart, Seymour P.2d v. 1985 OK 695 (Tull, although supra), ment im- law's mandate for trial 511. The fundamental 39(c). advisory panel jury. Fed.RXiv.P. right jury to the that existed in the has reference sought intermingles and relief When claim the state territories the time constitution legal components historically that were right predicated adopted. upon was not That equitable, frequent merger consequence statutes, upon but rather "the federal territorial equity accomplished of law and federal constitution and the course of common law.” procedure, courts the rules civil claim- Maryland Court, Co. v. District National Insurance ordinarily may juty ant trial —at least for 690, 692; Keeter v. 455 legal aspects long provid- the case—so Saye, P. State ex rel. 82 Okl. 198 868-69 ing jury impractical is not trial does (1921). vitiate essential character of action. Wright, pertinent part supra § of the Seventh Amendment at 92. is: U.S. Constitution law, where the value in "In Suits at common Humanities, Inc., Gasperini v. Center 41.In For dollars, twenty controversy exceed shall 431-33, 2211, 2222, 116 S.Ct. 135 U.S. right preserved....” by jury shall be of trial (1996), stated that "[t]he L.Ed.2d Court governs proceedings Seventh ... Amendment Amendment, applying the Seventh court, (emphasis but not state court..." federal traditionally ap- an historical Court has taken Sauvinet, added), citing Walker v. U.S. proach, it combined with elements func- (1876). 23 dall, See also v. Yew L.Ed. 678 Pearson Hazard, Civil tionality. F. & G. James Procedure [1877]; Maryland U.S. L.Ed. 8.2, 8.3, (3d ed.1985); Wright §§ Miller, 5 C. & A. 8.11 Court, National Insurance Co. v. District 92 at Practice And Procedure Federal Burns, 690, 692; analogue) Harada Haw. 612. If claim historical (1968). law, jury generally available Haw. 1791 was one conflicting amply supported by inferences is sufficient to warrant COCA’s reversal summary judgment, deny I would certiorari. probative legally the record’s material and is

Case Details

Case Name: Williams v. Tulsa Motels

Court Name: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date Published: May 21, 1998

Citation: 958 P.2d 1282

Docket Number: 89857

Court Abbreviation: Okla.