Okla. Stat. » Title 23 — DAMAGES

Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 12

Defense of contributory negligence or assumption of risk as

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

question of fact. The defense of contributory negligence or of assumption of risk shall, in all cases whatsoever, be a question of fact, and shall at all times be left to the jury, unless a jury is waived by the parties. Added by Laws 1973, c. 30, § 2.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1980–1997 · leading case: Minor v. Zidell Trust
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Minor v. Zidell Trust (1980) okla · cites it 4× “30 § 2 (23 O.S.Supp. 1973 § 12). [12] Coker v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.”
Graham v. Keuchel (1993) okla · cites it 2× “23 O.S.1981 § 12 provides: "The defense of contributory negligence or of assumption of risk shall, in all cases whatsoever, be a question of fact, and shall at all times be left to the jury, unless a jury is waived by the parties.”
Bode v. Clark Equipment Co. (1986) okla · cites it 2× “1973 § 11 stated: *826 Title 23 O.S.Supp.1973 § 12, codified in 1981 as 23 O.”
Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. v. Todd (1991) okla “23 O.S.1981, § 12. The majority avoids these provisions and, instead, implicitly indicates it is better positioned than the people of this State to determine the respective fault of the parties.”
Perez v. McConkey (1994) tenn “Code § 9-10-06 (1987); Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 23, § 12 (West 1987); Or.”
Davenport v. Cotton Hope Plantation Horizontal Property Regime (1997) scctapp · cites it 2× “Code § 9-10-06 (1987); Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 23, § 12 (West 1987); Or.”
David J. Dillworth Dorothy Dillworth v. Andrew Gambardella (1992) ca2 “Absent specific inclusion in the statute as to the legislature’s policy determina *1120 tion of which risks are “as a matter of law” inherent, obvious and necessary to participation in a sport, most cases cannot be resolved on a directed verdict motion.”
Bullard v. Grisham Construction Co. (1983) okla “, our reading of the transcript shows that the major purpose of the hearing was the discovery of “essential evidence” T(p.”
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Ferguson (1991) ca10 “23, § 6; Okla. Stat.Ann. tit. 23, § 12; see Bishop’s Restaurants, Inc.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.