Free Legal Help in Oklahoma

Graham v. Keuchel, 1993 OK 6, 847 P.2d 342

Oklahoma's highest court REVERSED a defense verdict in a medical-malpractice/wrongful-death case and remanded for a new trial, holding that (1) a plaintiff's ORDINARY negligence cannot rise to the level of a supervening cause that cuts off the original actor's liability — to supervene, the new cause must be independent of the original act, adequate in itself to bring about the result, and not reasonably foreseeable — so a supervening-cause instruction premised on the patient's ordinary negligence was reversible error; and (2) a 'mistake of judgment' standard-of-care instruction was unwarranted by the evidence and was likewise reversible error. Separately, and on the patient's own bodily-injury claim, the Court held that a contributory-negligence instruction WAS properly given, because there was evidence the patient failed to volunteer material history (her Rh-negative blood type and prior Rho-GAM treatment) that providers testified they would expect a patient to disclose even if not asked; whether that non-disclosure amounted to contributory negligence was a jury question that could not be taken from the jury.

Cited on: Defending an Oklahoma Malpractice Suit Over a Patient's Concealed History

John v. Saint Francis Hospital, Inc., 2017 OK 81, 405 P.3d 681

Oklahoma's affidavit-of-merit requirement, 12 O.S. § 19.1, is unconstitutional — an impermissible barrier to court access under Okla. Const. art. II, § 6 and a prohibited special law regulating judicial proceedings under art. V, § 46. A medical negligence plaintiff therefore need not attach an expert affidavit to the petition.

Cited on: Defending an Oklahoma Malpractice Suit Over a Patient's Concealed History

RIVENBURG v. CILIBERTI, 539 P.3d 1262 (2023) — Supreme Court of Oklahoma

A will, or any part of a will, may be declared void if it was the product of "duress, menace, fraud or undue influence."

Cited on: Options When a Sibling Takes Control of a Parent's House and Life Insurance After Death

Rose v. City of Tulsa, 2005 OK CIV APP 30, 114 P.3d 462

The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals AFFIRMED a directed verdict on liability in favor of a rear-ended plaintiff. Although negligence is ordinarily a jury question, it becomes a question of law for the court where the admitted facts are so conclusive that reasonable minds could not differ. On evidence that the City's driver descended a familiar steep hill toward a stop sign in the rain at no less than the posted speed limit and struck a stopped car from behind — while other vehicles cresting the same hill slid but stopped safely — a directed verdict for the plaintiff was proper, and an 'unavoidable accident' instruction was unwarranted because such an instruction requires evidence that the injury resulted SOLELY from a condition the defendant is not chargeable with and could not, and was not legally bound to be able to, prevent.

Cited on: Fault and Exposure After Rear-Ending Another Vehicle in Oklahoma