From: Subject: OSCN Found Document:GOMES v. HAMEED Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:15:44 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01C86320.B18780D0" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C86320.B18780D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=451192 OSCN Found Document:GOMES v. HAMEED
=20
 
Oklahoma Supreme Court Cases=20

GOMES v. = HAMEED
2008 OK 3
Case Number: 103013
Decide= d:=20 01/22/2008

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF = OKLAHOMA

Cite as: 2008 OK 3, __ P.3d __


NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR = PUBLICATION IN=20 THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR=20 WITHDRAWAL.

LINDA GOMES, EDWARD B.GOMES, and JOSEPH MICHAEL = COOVER,=20 Co-Guardians of the Estate and Person of ALYSSA MARIE GOMES COOVER, the = minor=20 child and next of kin of GEORGETTE ROSA GOMES, Deceased, on behalf of = ALYSSA=20 MARIE GOMES COOVER, and on behalf of LINDA C. GOMES and EDWARD B. GOMES, = Surviving Parents of Georgette Rosa Gomes, Deceased; and LINDA GOMES and = EDWARD=20 B. GOMES, individually, Plaintiffs/Appellants,
v.
AKHTAR HAMEED, = M.D. and=20 JENNIFER L. MILES HOLTER, M.D., Defendants/Appellees.

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION = IV

Honorable Carolyn R. Ricks, Trial Judge

=B60 While receiving treatment at a hospital, Georgette Gomes = (patient) stopped=20 breathing. The appellees, Dr. Akhtar Hameed, and Dr. Jennifer L. Miles = Holter,=20 responded to a code blue. The patient was resuscitated, suffered = permanent brain=20 damage, and eventually died. Thereafter, her guardian ad litem = sued the=20 hospital for negligence. The doctors allege that the attorney for the = guardian=20 ad litem verbally agreed not to sue them if they provided = information and=20 testimony in the guardian's lawsuit against the hospital. Although the = doctors=20 cooperated, the hospital won. The doctors filed motions for summary = judgment=20 insisting that the verbal contract had been breached, and that even if = it had=20 not, statutory immunity barred any negligence claims. The trial court, = Honorable=20 Carolyn Ricks, granted summary judgment in favor of both doctors. The = guardian=20 appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. We hold that: 1) the = absence=20 of a contractual relationship with an emergency room patient entitles a = doctor=20 to statutory immunity from claims of negligence pursuant to The Good = Samaritan=20 Act, 76 O.S. 2001 =A75, et seq.; and 2) an agreement not to sue negotiated on = behalf of=20 a minor and/or incapacitated person requires court approval to be = enforceable.=20

CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED;
COURT OF CIVIL = APPEALS OPINION=20 VACATED;
TRIAL COURT REVERSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART, AND=20 REMANDED.

John W. Norman, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for=20 Plaintiffs/Appellants.
Stephen J. Rodolf, Brent L. Thompson, = Elizabeth S.=20 Reynolds, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Defendant/Appellee Holter.
L. Earl = Ogletree,=20 Lane O. Krieger, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendant/Appellee = Hameed.

KAUGER, J.:

=B61 The determinative issues are whether: 1) statutory immunity = pursuant to=20 the Good Samaritan Act, 76 O.S. 2001 =A75=20 et seq., precludes recovery against a doctor who attempted to = provide=20 care to an emergency room patient with whom he had no contractual = relationship;=20 and 2) an agreement not to sue negotiated on behalf of a minor and/or=20 incapacitated person requires court approval to be enforceable. We hold = that the=20 doctor is entitled to statutory immunity and that such an agreement = requires=20 court approval.

FACTS

=B62 On June 8, 2001, seventeen year old Georgette Gomes (patient), = who was in=20 her twenty-fourth week of pregnancy when she went into premature labor, = was=20 transported to Presbyterian Hospital (hospital) in Oklahoma City, = Oklahoma from=20 Memorial Hospital in Chickasha, Oklahoma. In the course of treatment, = she was=20 given magnesium sulfate intravenously to delay and control her = contractions.=20

=B63 Between 8:52 and 8:56 a.m. on June 9, 2001, she delivered twins. = Sometime=20 after 9:55 a.m., she stopped breathing and a code blue was called at = 10:18 a.m.=20 The appellees, Dr. Akhtar Hameed, (Hameed) and Jennifer L. Miles Holter, = (Holter)(doctors) responded to the code blue. At the time, Dr. Holter = was a=20 resident participating in the University of Oklahoma College of Medicine = Residency Program and Dr. Hameed was a solo practitioner visiting the = labor and=20 delivery department of the hospital "doing records and caring for his = own=20 patient." The patient was resuscitated, but she suffered permanent brain = damage.=20

=B64 On August 30, 2001, Joe Womack, as guardian ad litem on = behalf of=20 the patient filed suit against the hospital for negligence and wrongful = death.=20 According to both doctors, sometime in February of 2003, about a month = before=20 the hospital trial began, they entered into an oral contract with the = guardian's=20 lawyer John Norman (lawyer/attorney). They allege that he agreed not to = sue them=20 in exchange for their testimony against the hospital. The lawyer = contends that=20 he merely said when asked whether he was going to sue the doctors, that = he "had=20 no plans of doing so." Although the doctors complied with the agreement, = the=20 cause ended in a verdict in favor of the hospital on March 12, 2003. =

=B65 After he failed to recover against the hospital, the guardian = ad=20 litem, on behalf of Georgette Gomes, filed a wrongful = death/negligence=20 action against the doctors on June 5, 2003. She died on July 29, 2003, = and the=20 case was ultimately dismissed without prejudice.1 On=20 September 22, 2004, the appellees, the patient's parents and the father = of her=20 minor child acting as co-guardians (guardians) and represented by the = same=20 lawyer who sued the hospital, brought a wrongful death/negligence action = against=20 the doctors, asserting claims on her behalf and on behalf of her = surviving child=20 and parents.

=B66 On October 4, 2005, Doctor Holter filed a motion for summary = judgment=20 arguing that the cause should be dismissed because: 1) the attorney had = breached=20 the agreement not to sue; 2) even if the agreement were unenforceable = due to=20 lack of consideration, promissory estoppel precluded a lawsuit; and 3) = the=20 statute of frauds was inapplicable because the contract was performed = within a=20 year.2 On=20 October 26, 2005, Dr. Hameed also filed a motion for summary judgment = arguing=20 that: 1) he had entered into an agreement not to sue with the lawyer = which had=20 been breached; and 2) pursuant to 76 O.S. 2001 =A753 and=20 59 O.S. 2001 =A75184, he=20 was immune from liability.

=B67 On December 28, 2005, the trial court entered separate orders = granting=20 summary judgment in favor of the doctors without explaining the basis of = its=20 decision. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court, = determining that=20 the doctors were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law based = on the=20 agreement not to sue them made by counsel for the guardian of the = patient to=20 secure their assistance in the guardian's suit against the hospital. We = granted=20 certiorari on February 20, 2007.

I.

=B68 THE ABSENCE OF A CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH=20 AN
EMERGENCY ROOM PATIENT ENTITLES A DOCTOR TO STATUTORY
IMMUNITY = FROM=20 CLAIMS OF NEGLIGENCE PURSUANT TO THE
GOOD SAMARITAN ACT, = 76 O.S. 2001 =A75 et seq.

=B69 Doctor Hameed argues that summary judgment should have been = entered in his=20 favor because, as a matter of law, he is statutorily immune from = liability. He=20 alleges that our decision in Jackson v. Mercy = Health=20 Center, Inc., 1993 OK 155,=20 864 P.2d 839,=20 is dispositive of the issue. The lawyer contends that Jackson is=20 distinguishable on its facts and that even if it weren't, because Hameed = did not=20 render any care, he cannot invoke statutory immunity. Although the = lawyer had=20 apparently alleged in a previous lawsuit that "the fluid containing = magnesium=20 sulfate was given by Defendant Akhtar Hameed,"5 now=20 he insists that Hameed was negligent because, by his own admission, he = merely=20 observed what was happening, rather than providing proper care.6=20

=B610 The immunity statutes at issue are 76 O.S. 2001 =A757 and=20 59 O.S. 2001 =A7518.8=20 Title 76 O.S. 2001 =A75=20 is known as the Good Samaritan Act (the Act). It provides statutory = immunity=20 from acts of negligence when a physician renders or attempts to render = emergency=20 care.9 In=20 Jackson v. Mercy Heath Center, Inc.,=20 1993 OK 155,=20 864 P.2d 839,=20 the Court addressed the issue of whether the Good Samaritan Act, = 76 O.S. 1991 =A75,10=20 cloaked the hospital with statutory immunity from liability for its = personnel's=20 allegedly negligent attempt to render medical aid to a hospital visitor. = There,=20 the visitor, while accompanying his pregnant wife to the operating room = became=20 dizzy and the hospital personnel helped him to take a seat. After being = seated,=20 but not secured, he fell and was injured. The visitor sued the hospital = for=20 negligence.

=B611 The hospital asserted that it was statutorily immune from = liability=20 pursuant to the Act. The Jackson Court recognized that the Act = had=20 abrogated the common-law rescue doctrine for medical providers in an = effort to=20 encourage them to risk assisting strangers in need of help when they had = no duty=20 to render aid. The Act provided immunity from liability for negligence = to all=20 those health care providers who, while not contractually bound to assist = an=20 injured person, render, or attempt to render, care in good faith.

=B612 The Court noted that Good Samaritan immunity rests on three = elements: 1)=20 the absence of a prior contractual relationship between the rescuer and = the=20 injured person; 2) the characterization of the rescuer's act as having = been done=20 in good faith, voluntarily and without compensation; and 3) the injured = person's=20 apparent need of emergency medical aid. The Court also noted that rescue = is not=20 limited to any particular place, but that it may occur anywhere ---- = including a=20 hospital.

=B613 The Jackson Court did not address what actions were = required to=20 qualify as rendering or attempting to render emergency care.11 It=20 did determine that the Act's immunity was inapplicable in the context of = a=20 hospital/patient relationship because the Act expressly requires the = absence of=20 a prior contractual relationship between the rescuer and the injured = person. No=20 hospital is ever a Good Samaritan vis-a-vis its own patient. = However, the=20 Court concluded that under the facts of that cause that: 1) the visitor = had no=20 contractual relationship with the Hospital which would make him a = patient and=20 thus take him out of the range of statutory immunity; and 2) the = hospital was=20 clearly responding to an apparent emergency which called for immediate=20 action.

=B614 Here, Georgette Gomes' was not that of a visitor, invitee, = licensee, or=20 trespasser. Her status was that of a patient with a contractual = relationship to=20 the hospital and its staff. Nevertheless, Jackson's rationale = applies to=20 these facts because she was not his patient: Dr. Hameed had no direct=20 contractual relationship with her; he did not work for the hospital; and = he=20 merely happened to be at the emergency room going through records and = visiting=20 his patient when the code blue was called.

=B615 Whether Dr. Hameed administered the alleged overdose12=20 or, as he contends, responded to the emergency call, and went into the = room in=20 an attempt to render aid, but found himself an observer of the multiple = doctors=20 and nurses who were in the room already assisting the patient, we agree = that=20 Jackson is dispositive. The doctor's conduct qualifies as = rendering or=20 attempting to render care, thus invoking the statute's protection from = claims of=20 negligence. Because the doctor is statutorily immune from claims of = negligence=20 under the Good Samaritan Act, we need not address his alleged immunity = pursuant=20 to 59 O.S. 2001 =A7518.13=20

II.

=B616 AN AGREEMENT NOT TO SUE WHICH WAS NEGOTIATED = ON
BEHALF OF=20 A MINOR AND/OR INCAPACITATED PERSON REQUIRES
COURT APPROVAL TO BE=20 ENFORCEABLE.

=B617 Although Dr. Hameed is protected by statutory immunity, Dr. = Holter does=20 not argue that she qualifies for such immunity. Rather, she argues that = summary=20 judgment was proper because: 1) no substantial controversy exists = regarding the=20 alleged agreement not to sue; and 2) an attorney's actions bind the = client=20 without regard to age or incapacity. The lawyer insists that an = agreement never=20 existed and that even if it did, it would be unenforceable without court = approval.

=B618 A contract is an agreement to do or not to do a certain = thing.14=20 Every contract results from and offer and acceptance.15=20 The facts are clearly disputed as to whether an offer was made, much = less=20 accepted.16=20 The question of whether the minds of the parties ever met in complete = agreement=20 is a question of fact for the jury.17=20 Because the issue of the existence of a contract is a question of = fact,18=20 summary judgment was premature.19=20

=B619 Nevertheless, a novel question remains as to whether such an = agreement is=20 enforceable. The doctor argues that an attorney may act as an agent of a = client=20 but she provides no authority under which an attorney has been allowed = to waive=20 the right to sue on behalf of a minor or incapacitated person -- nor = does=20 research reveal any controlling authority.

=B620 The lawyer relies on Creech v. Melnik, = M.D.,=20 147 N.C. App. 47, 556 S.E.2d 587 (N.C. App. 2001), a similar case, as = persuasive=20 authority to illustrate that the alleged agreement is uneforceable = without court=20 approval. In Creech v. Melnik, supra, the North Carolina = Court of=20 Appeals decided a case which involved parents who, in their capacity as=20 guardians ad litem, brought a medical malpractice action against = a doctor=20 alleging that the doctor provided negligent treatment to their son. = Before=20 filing the action, the plaintiff's attorney spoke with the doctor on = several=20 occasions, allegedly assuring the doctor that they would not sue her if = she=20 spoke with him concerning the events surrounding the child's birth. The = trial=20 court granted summary judgment in favor of the doctor under the = affirmative=20 defenses of equitable estoppel and breach of implied contract not to = sue. After=20 the cause was remanded on appeal, a jury returned a verdict in favor of = the=20 doctor on the grounds that the plaintiffs breached their implied = contract not to=20 sue. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that: 1) the attorney did not have = the=20 authority to contract on behalf of the minor; and 2) there was no = evidence which=20 showed that a court had reviewed and approved the alleged contract on = behalf of=20 the minor.

=B621 In Creech v. Melnik, supra, the appellate court = determined=20 that court approval was required to create a valid contract involving a = minor.=20 Because the record showed no evidence that the "implied" contract with = the=20 subject minor was investigated and approved by a court, it reversed the = jury=20 verdict. The court reasoned that court investigation and approval were = necessary=20 because:

1) historically, courts have provided special protections for minors = in=20 general contractual relations which allowed contracts to be avoided or=20 disaffirmed;
2) infants are regarded as entitled to special = protection of=20 the State as wards of the court because courts are the supreme guardians = of all=20 infants and their personal and property rights;
3) courts have the = inherent=20 authority over the property of infants and will exercise jurisdiction = whenever=20 it is necessary to preserve and protect children's estates and = interests;
4)=20 settlement of a minor's tort claims are effective only after judicial=20 examination and adjudication; and
5) a next of friend, guardian = ad=20 litem, or guardian cannot consent to a judgment or compromise = without=20 investigation and approval by the court.

=B622 We need look no further than our case law and statutes to reach = the same=20 result as the Creech Court. A guardian is a person appointed by = the court=20 to care for the person or property of another.20 A=20 guardian ad litem is a person appointed by the court to assist = the=20 subject of a proceeding in making decisions or to make decisions when = the=20 subject of a proceeding is incapable of making decisions even with = assistance.21 A=20 minor is a person under the age of 18,22=20 and an incapacitated person is one who is physically or mentally = impaired.23 We=20 have long recognized that minors and incompetent or incapacitated = persons are=20 the special wards of the court and that a guardian ad litem of a = minor=20 child is the arm of the court extended to persons unable to look after = their own=20 interests.24=20

=B623 A court has broad authority to appoint a guardian ad litem = for a=20 minor's protection whenever necessary to defend the interests of a = minor.25 A=20 guardian ad litem is not permitted to waive any of the = substantial rights=20 of the ward or to consent to anything which would prejudice the minor's=20 rights.26=20 Upon appointment, a guardian ad litem becomes an officer of the = court and=20 is charged with the duty of protecting the rights of a minor for the = State in=20 its role as parens patriae.27 It=20 is the duty of the court to guard with jealous care the interests of = minors in=20 actions involving their rights and every presumption is indulged in = favor of the=20 minor. If a guardian ad litem fails to properly discharge their = duty, it=20 becomes the imperative duty of the court to protect the infant's = rights.28=20

=B624 In Hamilton By and Through = Hamilton v.=20 Vaden, 1986 OK 36,=20 =B612, 721 P.2d 412,=20 we addressed whether the minority of a surviving child tolled the = limitation=20 period for a wrongful death suit and described the general policy of = protection=20 of minor's interests. The Court noted that:

. . . The mere existence of a guardian ad litem or next friend does = not=20 remove from the court's consideration the infirmities caused by the = child's=20 minority. It is the policy of the law generally, and of our statutes in=20 particular, to protect minor litigants' interests. Oklahoma law places = an=20 affirmative duty on the courts to preserve and protect the rights of a = minor=20 even when the child is represented by a guardian ad litem or next of = friend.

A guardian ad litem, or next friend, is not permitted to waive any of = the=20 substantial rights of the ward or to consent to anything which would = prejudice=20 the minor's rights. If the appearance of a next friend sufficed to = remove the=20 minority-based disability of the child, these added protections would be = unnecessary. . . .

It is the duty of the courts sedulously to guard the rights of = minors. No=20 presumption against an infant is permitted; rather every presumption is = indulged=20 in his/her favor. A guardian ad litem must present every issue available = on=20 behalf of the child. If the guardian fails properly to discharge the = duties of=20 guardianship, the responsibility devolves upon the courts acting on = behalf of=20 the state to protect the best interest of the child. Courts cannot = assume that=20 parents will act effectively to protect the rights of their children; = and it is=20 neither reasonable nor realistic to rely upon parents (who may = themselves be=20 minors, or who may be ignorant, lethargic, or unconcerned) to bring an = action=20 within the time provided. It is equally unreasonable to expect a minor, = whose=20 parents fail timely to vindicate his/her legal rights, independently to = seek out=20 another adult willing to serve as next friend. To do so would ignore the = realities of the family unit and the limitations of children. . .=20 .

=B625 In Lambert v. Hill, 1937 OK 331,=20 =B69, 73 P.2d 124, an=20 attorney and a guardian ad litem entered into a release and = satisfaction=20 of a judgment on behalf of a minor. The Court recognized that the weight = of=20 authority supported the doctrine that a compromise or agreement of = satisfaction=20 entered into on behalf of a minor would require consent and approval of = a court.=20 Even though the agreement was not presented to the trial court at the = time it=20 was made, it was later reviewed at a hearing and approved by the trial = court.=20 Consequently, the transaction was affirmed on appeal.

=B626 Although many of our cases involve minors, the same rationale = that=20 supports protection of minors also supports protection of incapacitated = or=20 incompetent persons. Whenever a minor or incapacitated person is = involved in=20 circumstances which give rise to legal action, suit must be brought by a = representative to ensure that their interests are protected.29 An=20 infant's right to rescind a contract is unaffected by approval or = consent by a=20 parent.30=20 Pursuant to 30 O.S. 2001 =A74-702, when a guardian compromises and settles a lawsuit on behalf = of the=20 ward, the settlement is subject to court approval.31=20

=B627 It would be incongruous to require court approval of = compromises and=20 settlements of legal actions or agreed releases and satisfactions in = settlement=20 of judgments on behalf of minors or incapacitated persons, but allow a = covenant=20 not to sue or a release of a cause of action on behalf of a minor or=20 incapacitated person to remain enforceable without court investigation = or=20 approval. Enforcement without court approval would allow the court to = abandon=20 its duty to guard the interests of minors in actions involving their = rights.=20 However, Lambert v. Hill, supra, illustrates that the = contract=20 need not be approved before the exchanged promises are performed. While = we hold=20 that an agreement not to sue which is negotiated on behalf of a minor or = incapacitated person must be approved by the court to be enforceable,32=20 there is no impediment to having such a contact tendered for judicial = approval=20 upon remand.33=20

=B629 Neither the United States Constitution nor the Constitution of = the State=20 of Oklahoma delineate the effective date of judicial opinions. We may = give=20 prospective operation to our announcements when necessary to avoid = disruption=20 and to allow a period of adjustment.34 In=20 making such a determination, we must consider: 1) the purpose of the new = rule;=20 2) the extent of reliance on old doctrines; and 3) the burden likely to = be=20 imposed on administering the legal process due to additional litigation = or=20 curative actions.35 A=20 weighing of these factors persuades us to give today's pronouncement = effect in=20 this cause and to prospectively govern those clams which arise after the = effective date of today's pronouncement.

CONCLUSION

=B630 Title 76 O.S. 2001 =A7536=20 has been applied where no prior contractual relationship existed with = the person=20 in need of emergency care. The undisputed facts show that nature of the=20 relationship between Dr. Hameed, the hospital and the patient entitle = the doctor=20 to the application of =A75 to provide statutory immunity as a matter of = law.=20 Consequently, summary judgment on this issue is affirmed.

=B631 Insofar as Dr. Holter is concerned, disputed facts exist = regarding=20 whether a contract not to sue was entered. Nevertheless, even if a = contract were=20 agreed upon, the courts have a duty to protect the interest of minors = and=20 incapacitated and incompetent persons. This duty requires that an = agreement not=20 to sue allegedly negotiated on behalf of a minor and/or incapacitated = person be=20 investigated and approved by the court before any substantial rights are = waived=20 or the minor's rights are prejudiced. However, there is no = impediment to=20 the trial court approving such an agreement, if it exists, on remand. = Today's=20 ruling governs this cause and prospectively those claims which arise = after the=20 effective date of today's pronouncement.

TRIAL COURT REVERSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART, AND=20 REMANDED.

Edmondson, V.C.J., Hargrave, Kauger, Watt, Colbert, JJ., concur.

Opala, J., dissents.

Taylor, J., concurs in part, dissents in part, with whom Winchester, = C.J.,=20 joins:

I concur in Part I. I dissent to Part II. For the same reasons stated = by the=20 Court of Civil Appeals, I would enforce the agreement not to sue. This = agreement=20 was negotiated by the plaintiff's counsel in order to secure the = physicians'=20 assistance in the plaintiff's suit against the hospital. The plaintiff = accepted=20 all benefits of that agreement. The physicians acted in reliance upon = the=20 agreement.

Reif, J., disqualified.

FOOTNOTES

1 The=20 trial court entered an order on September 25, 2003, dismissing the case = for=20 failure to issue a summons after 90 days of filing the petition. Rule 9 = of the=20 Rules for the District Courts of Oklahoma, 12 O.S. 2001, Ch. 2, App., = provides:=20

a. In any case in which summons is not issued or waiver filed within = ninety=20 (90) days after the filing of the petition, or alias summons is not = issued=20 within thirty (30) days after return of the summons not served, the = action may=20 be dismissed by the court without notice to the plaintiff.

b. Where an action is not diligently prosecuted, the court may = require the=20 plaintiff to show why the action should not be dismissed. If the = plaintiff does=20 not show good cause why the action should not be dismissed, the court = shall=20 dismiss the action without prejudice. A court shall dismiss actions in = which no=20 action has been taken for a year as provided in 12 O.S.1981 =A71083.

2=20 According to the doctors, the agreement was reached in February of 2003, = approximately one month before the hospital trial began. Title 15 O.S. Supp. 2003 =A7136 provides:

The following contracts are invalid, unless the same, or some note or = memorandum thereof, be in writing and subscribed by the party to be = charged, by=20 an agent of the party or by a single-party broker of the party pursuant = to=20 Sections 858-351 through 858-363 of Title 59 of the Oklahoma Statutes: =

1. An agreement that, by its terms, is not to be performed within a = year from=20 the making thereof;

2. A special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage = of=20 another, except in the cases provided for in the article on = guaranty;

3. An agreement made upon consideration of marriage, other than a = mutual=20 promise to marry; or

4. An agreement for the leasing for a longer period than one (1) = year, or for=20 the sale of real property, or of an interest therein; and such = agreement, if=20 made by an agent or a single-party broker of the party sought to be = charged, is=20 invalid, unless the authority of the agent or the single-party broker be = in=20 writing, subscribed by the party sought to be charged.

3=20 Title 76 O.S. 2001 =A75=20 provides in pertinent part:

a) Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his willful = acts, but=20 also for an injury occasioned to another by his want of ordinary care or = skill=20 in the management of his property or person, except so far as the latter = has,=20 willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself, = and=20 except as hereinafter provided.

(1) Where no prior contractual relationship exists, any person = licensed to=20 practice any method of treatment of human ailments, disease, pain, = injury,=20 deformity, mental or physical condition, or licensed to render services=20 ancillary thereto, including licensed registered and practical nurses, = who,=20 under emergency circumstances that suggest the giving of aid is the only = alternative to probable death or serious bodily injury, in good faith,=20 voluntarily and without compensation, renders or attempts to render = emergency=20 care to an injured person or any person who is in need of immediate = medical aid,=20 wherever required, shall not be liable for damages as a result of any = acts or=20 omissions except for committing gross negligence or willful or wanton = wrongs in=20 rendering the emergency care.

(2) Where no prior contractual relationship exists, any person who in = good=20 faith renders or attempts to render emergency care consisting of = artificial=20 respiration, restoration of breathing, or preventing or retarding the = loss of=20 blood, or aiding or restoring heart action or circulation of blood to = the victim=20 or victims of an accident or emergency, wherever required, shall not be = liable=20 for any civil damages as a result of any acts or omissions by such = person in=20 rendering the emergency care. . . .

(b) This act shall be known and may be cited as the 'Good Samaritan = Act.'=20

4=20 Title 59 O.S. 2001 =A7518 provides:

No person who is a licensed practitioner of a healing art in the = State of=20 Oklahoma, who in good faith renders emergency care or treatment at the = scene of=20 the emergency, shall be liable for any civil damages as a result of any = acts or=20 omissions by such person in rendering the emergency care or treatment, = and no=20 person who is a licensed practitioner of a healing art in the State of = Oklahoma=20 shall be prosecuted under the criminal statutes of this state for = treatment of a=20 minor without the consent of a minor's parent or guardian when such = treatment=20 was performed under emergency conditions and in good faith.

5 The=20 plaintiff's petition for certiorari filed on October 30, 2006 provides = in=20 pertinent part on page 4:

. . .The second case, CJ-2003-4702, was filed on June 5, 2003, = shortly before=20 the second anniversary of Georgette's injury, by Womank on behalf of = Georgette=20 to prevent the statute of limitations from running. The allegation = against=20 Holter and Movant was that "HCA nurses testified that the fluid = containing=20 magnesium sulfate was given by Defendant Akhtar Hameed, and that = Defendant=20 Jennifer Miles Holter said to give it. . . .

6 The=20 Doctor's deposition of April 4, 2002 provides in pertinent part on p. = 16:

. . . A. That's basically -- I was just there to see if my help would = be=20 needed.
Q. Okay. Did you ever do anything in the code, = yourself?
A. My=20 help was never needed.
Q. Okay.
A. Except -
Q. So you were an=20 observer?
A. I was an observer. . . .

7=20 Title 76 O.S. 2001 =A75, see note 3, supra.

8=20 Title 59 O.S. 2001 =A7518, see note 4, supra

9=20 Title 76 O.S. 2001 =A75, see note 3, supra.

10=20 The version of the Good Samaritan Act, 76 O.S. 1991 =A75, involved in Jackson v. Mercy Health = Center,=20 Inc., 1993 OK 155,=20 864 P.2d 839,=20 remains unchanged from the current version.

11 In=20 Jackson v. Mercy Health Center, Inc., = see=20 note 10, supra at =B67, fn.16, the Court noted that at issue was not = whether the=20 hospital failed to give any medical aid, but that he did not receive = emergency=20 care.

12=20 See discussion =B69, supra.

13=20 Title 59 O.S. 2001 =A7518, see note 4, supra. Unlike 76 O.S. 2001 =A75, see note 3, supra, which applies to "an accident or = emergency, wherever=20 required," =A7518 is specifically limited to "emergency care or = treatment at the=20 scene of the emergency."

14=20 Title 15 O.S. 2001 =A71.

15=20 Garrison v. Bechtel Corp., 1995 OK 2, =B618,=20 889 P.2d 273;=20 National Outdoor Advertising Co. v. = Kalkhurst,=20 1966 OK 85,=20 =B613, 418 P.2d 661;=20 Sims v. United Bridge & Iron, = 1965 OK 91,=20 =B611, 402 P.2d 911.=20

16=20 The doctor attached her affidavit to her motion for summary judgment = contending=20 that she entered into an oral contract with the lawyer to forgo filing a = suit=20 against her in exchange for testimony in the hospital lawsuit. The = record also=20 contains an affidavit from the attorney who represented the doctors in = the=20 hospital case who also insist that a verbal agreement was reached. The = attorney,=20 in his objections to the motions for summary judgement, specifically = denies that=20 an oral agreement was entered into, requested or obtained and attaches = his own=20 affidavit in support of his statements.

17=20 J.B. Klein Iron & Foundry=20 Co. v. Midland Steel & Equipment=20 Co., 1938 OK 385,=20 =B60, 83 P.2d 157;=20 Cosden Oil & Gas Co. v. = Moss,=20 1928 OK 352;=20 =B60, 267 P.855. Questions of fact arising from a contract are = determined by the=20 trier of fact. GRP of Texas, Inc., v.=20 Eateries, Inc., 2001 OK 53,=20 =B615, 27 P.3d 95.=20

18=20 Because disputed fact issues concerning the existence of the contract = exist,=20 fact issues regarding whether the elements of promissory estoppel would = be met=20 even if it were applicable also exist. See, Russell v.=20 Board of County Com'rs, Carter = County,=20 1997 OK 80,=20 =B627, 952 P.2d 492.=20 Consequently we need not address the applicability of promissory = estoppel at=20 this juncture.

19 A=20 motion for summary judgment should be sustained only when the pleadings, = affidavits, depositions, admissions or other evidentiary materials = establish=20 that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the = moving party=20 is entitled to a judgement as a matter of law. Green v. = Harris,=20 2003 OK 55,=20 =B611, 70 P.3d 866;=20 K & K Food Services, Inc. = v.=20 S & H, Inc., 2000 OK 31,=20 =B616, 3 P.3d 705;=20 Skinner v. Braum's Ice Cream Store, = 1995 OK 11, =B69,=20 890 P.2d 922.=20 All conclusions drawn from the evidentiary materials submitted to the = trial=20 court are viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the = motion.=20 Green v. Harris, supra; K & K = Food=20 Services, Inc. v. S & H, = Inc.,=20 supra; Phelps v. Hotel Management, Inc., = 1996 OK 114,=20 =B67, 925 P.2d 891.=20 Even when basic facts are undisputed, motions for summary judgment = should be=20 denied, if under the evidence, reasonable persons might reach different=20 conclusions from the undisputed facts. Green v. Harris, = supra;=20 Prichard v. City of Oklahoma City, = 1999 OK 5, =B619,=20 975 P.2d 214; Kraszewski v. Baptist Medical = Center=20 of Oklahoma, 1996 OK 141,=20 =B66, 916 P.2d 241.=20

20=20 Title 30 O.S. 2001 =A71-105 provides:

A guardian is a person appointed by the court to take care of the = person or=20 property of another.

The appointment of a guardian is statutorily governed by the Oklahoma = Guardianship and Conservation Act. Title 30 O.S. 2001 =A71-101 et seq. The purpose of the Act is to promote the welfare = of citizens=20 and provide protection of rights and management of financial resources = for=20 minors and incapacitated persons. Title 30 O.S. 2001 =A71-103 provides:

A. It is the purpose of the Oklahoma Guardianship Act to promote the = general=20 welfare of all citizens by establishing a system of general and limited=20 guardianships for minors and for incapacitated and partially = incapacitated=20 persons which provides for the protection of their rights and the = management of=20 their financial resources.

B. It is the purpose of the system of general and limited = guardianships for=20 incapacitated and partially incapacitated persons established by this = act to=20 provide for the participation of such persons, as fully as possible, in = the=20 decisions which affect them. It is the intent of the Oklahoma State = Legislature:=20

1. That the court shall exercise the authority conferred by the = Oklahoma=20 Guardianship Act so as to encourage the development of maximum = self-reliance and=20 independence of the incapacitated or partially incapacitated person and = make=20 appointive and other orders only to the extent necessitated by the = mental and=20 adaptive limitations or other condition of the incapacitated or = partially=20 incapacitated person warranting the procedure;

2. That in performing their duties and exercising their powers, = guardians and=20 limited guardians of incapacitated or partially incapacitated persons = shall:

a. assure, to the extent reasonably possible, that the rights of the = wards=20 for whom they are appointed are protected;

b. encourage, to the extent reasonably possible, incapacitated or = partially=20 incapacitated persons to participate to the maximum extent of their = abilities in=20 all decisions which affect them and to act on their own behalf on all = matters in=20 which they are able to do so within the limitations imposed by the = court;=20 and

c. as appropriate, assist their wards to develop or regain to the = maximum=20 extent possible their capacity to meet the essential requirements for = their=20 health or safety, or to manage their financial resources or both.

21=20 Title 30 O.S. 2001 =A71-111 provides in pertinent part:

. . . 'Guardian ad litem' means, with respect to a guardianship = proceeding, a=20 person appointed by the court to assist the subject of the proceeding in = making=20 decisions with regard to the guardianship proceeding, or to make said = decisions=20 when the subject of the proceeding is wholly incapable of making said = decisions=20 even with assistance; . . . .

22=20 Title 15 O.S. 2001 =A713 provides:

Minors, except as otherwise provided by law, are persons under = eighteen (18)=20 years of age.

The period thus specified must be calculated from the first minute of = the day=20 on which a person is born to the same minute of the corresponding day = completing=20 the period of minority.

23=20 Title 30 O.S. 2001 =A71-111 provides in pertinent part:

A. As used in the Oklahoma Guardianship and Conservatorship Act: . . = .

12. "Incapacitated person" means a person eighteen (18) years of age = or=20 older:

a. who is impaired by reason of:

(1) mental illness as defined by Section 1-103 of Title 43A of the = Oklahoma=20 Statutes,

(2) mental retardation or developmental disability as defined by = Section=20 1-818.2 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes,

(3) physical illness or disability,

(4) drug or alcohol dependency as defined by Section 3-403 of Title = 43A of=20 the Oklahoma Statutes, or

(5) such other similar cause, and

b. whose ability to receive and evaluate information effectively or = to make=20 and to communicate responsible decisions is impaired to such an extent = that said=20 person:

(1) lacks the capacity to meet essential requirements for his = physical health=20 or safety, or

(2) is unable to manage his financial resources. Whenever in the = Oklahoma=20 Statutes the term "incompetent person" appears and refers to a person = who has=20 been found by a district court to be an incompetent person because of an = impairment or condition described in this paragraph it shall have the = same=20 meaning as "incapacitated person" but shall not include a person who is = a=20 partially incapacitated person; . . .

Title 15 O.S. 2001 =A716 provides:

Persons of unsound mind within the meaning of this chapter are = incapacitated=20 persons, as such terms are defined by Section 1-111 of Title 30 of the = Oklahoma=20 Statutes.

24=20 American Inv. Co. v. Brewer, 1918 OK 741,=20 =B66, 181 P. 294.=20

25=20 Title 30 O.S. 2001 =A71-117 provides:

A. Nothing contained in this title affects or impairs the power of = any court=20 to appoint a guardian ad litem to defend the interests of any minor = interested=20 in any suit or matter pending therein.

B. At any point in a guardianship proceeding, the subject of the = proceeding,=20 his attorney, the guardian of the subject of the proceeding or anyone = interested=20 in the welfare of the subject of the proceeding may file an application = to have=20 a guardian ad litem appointed by the court, or the court on its own = motion may=20 appoint a guardian ad litem. If not precluded by a conflict of interest, = a=20 guardian ad litem may be appointed to represent several persons or = interests.=20

26=20 Stephens v. Stephens, 1957 OK 110,=20 =B64, 311 P.2d 241;=20 Woods v. State, 1952 OK 143,=20 =B65, 249 P.2d 99; Franklin v. Margay Oil = Corp.,=20 1944 OK 316,=20 =B642, 153 P.2d 486.=20

27=20 Hoffman v. Morgan, 1952 OK 199,=20 =B617, 245 P.2d 67, 30=20 A.L.R.2d 1141. See also, Ex Parte Walters, 1950 OK = CR. 85,=20 221 P.2d 659,=20 666 (A child is primarily a ward of the sate and the sovereign has = inherent=20 power to legislate for welfare of child.).

28=20 Tanner v. Schultz, 1924 OK 119,=20 =B60, 223 P. 174;=20 In re. Hildebrand's Estate v. White, = 1921 OK 128,=20 =B67, 197 P. 445;=20 In re. Sanders' Estate v. Sanders, 1917 OK 468,=20 =B60, 168 P. 197;=20 Bolling v. Campbell, 1912 OK 581,=20 =B60, 128 P. 1091.=20

29=20 Title 12 O.S. 2001 =A72017 provides in pertinent part:

. . .C. INFANTS OR INCOMPETENT PERSONS. Whenever an infant or = incompetent=20 person has a representative, such as a general guardian, committee, = conservator,=20 or other like fiduciary, the representative may sue or defend on behalf = of the=20 infant or incompetent person. If an infant or incompetent person does = not have a=20 duly appointed representative he may sue by his next friend or by a = guardian ad=20 litem. The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for an infant or = incompetent=20 person not otherwise represented in an action or shall make such other = order as=20 it deems proper for the protection of the infant or incompetent person. = . . .=20

30=20 Gage v. Moore, 1948 OK 214,=20 =B68, 198 P.2d 395.=20 Some states recognize that absent judicial or statutory authority, = parents have=20 no authority to release a cause of action belonging to their child. For = a=20 discussion of the issue, see Scott v. Pacific West=20 Mountain Resort, 119 Wash. 2d 484, 834 P.2d 6, 11-12 = (1992).

31=20 Title 30 O.S. 2001 =A74-702 provides:

A guardian must settle all accounts of the ward, and demand, sue for, = and=20 receive all debts due to the ward, or may, with the approval of the = court,=20 compromise or compound for the same and give discharges to the debtors = on=20 receiving a fair and just settlement of such claim. A guardian shall = appear for=20 and represent the ward in all legal suits and proceedings, unless = another person=20 is appointed for that purpose as guardian or next friend. A guardian, = with the=20 approval of the court exercising jurisdiction in the suit or proceeding, = may=20 compromise and settle any claim made by, on behalf of or against the = ward in=20 such suit or proceeding.

When a judgment is rendered against a minor who is not represented by = a=20 guardian ad litem, it is voidable. Allen v. = Hickman,=20 1963 OK 156,=20 =B64, 383 P.2d 676;=20 Stephenson v. Stephenson, 1945 OK 159,=20 =B65, 167 P.2d 63.=20

32=20 See, Tanner v. Schultz, note 28, supra; In re=20 Hildebrand's Estate v. White, note 28, supra; = In re=20 Sander's Estate v. Sanders, note 28, supra;=20 Bolling v. Campbell, note 28, supra. [It is the duty of = the court=20 to guard with jealous care the interests of minors in actions involving = their=20 rights and every presumption is indulged in favor of the minor and in = the case=20 of the failure of a guardian ad litem to properly discharge their = duty,=20 it becomes the imperative duty of the court to protect the infant's = rights.].=20 See also, Ex Parte v. Walters, note 27, = supra [A=20 child is primarily a ward of the sate and the sovereign has inherent = power to=20 legislate for welfare of child.]. See also, Creech v.=20 Milnik, 147 N.C.App. 471, 566 S.E.2d 587, 591 wherein the Court = discusses=20 the inherent authority of courts over the property of infants and the = necessity=20 to exercise jurisdiction whenever necessary to preserve and protect = children's=20 estate and interests. Also noting that the court looks closely into = contracts or=20 settlements materially affecting the rights of infants.

33=20 See, Lambert v. Hill, 1937 OK 331,=20 =B614, 73 P.2d 124.=20 [The fact that the agreement was not presented to the court for its = approval=20 until some considerable time later would not preclude the trial court = from=20 examining into the same with equal force and effect as if the matter had = been=20 presented promptly. The court in examining into the matter at a later = date may=20 and should take into consideration any harm which might have resulted to = the=20 minor, but that consideration is of no more importance than any other = equitable=20 considerations which might enter into the court's determination of the = entire=20 matter.]. The lawyer provides no authority which would require judicial = approval=20 of a minor's agreement not to sue before the promise's rendered = performance as=20 her quid pro quo. This norm is fully consistent with the = common-law rule=20 that contracts on behalf of minors for counsel fees my be entered into = sans=20 judicial approval, but the reasonableness of the fee amount set by the = contract=20 my be inquired into for its approval after the legal services have been=20 performed. See, Abel v. Tisdale, 1980 OK 161,=20 =B611, 619 P.2d 608.=20 [In determining a reasonable attorney's fee for services performed on = behalf of=20 minors, the use of hindsight has been held to be proper, and under this = approach=20 the court should not attempt solely to assess the reasonableness of a = contingent=20 fee agreement at the time it was entered.].

34=20 Able Auto Cash Express, Inc., v. = State=20 ex rel. Oklahoma Dept. of Consumer=20 Credit, 2003 OK 89,=20 =B620, fn. 27, 78 P.3d 1231;=20 Cambell v. White, 1993 OK 89,=20 =B618, 856 P.2d 255.=20 In Great Northern Railway v. Sunburst = Oil=20 & Refining Co., 287 U.S.=20 358, 364, 53 S.Ct. 145, 148, 77 = L.Ed. 360=20 (1932), a noncriminal case involving no question of constitutional law, = the=20 Court developed the Sunburst Doctrine, holding that a state may choose = for=20 itself between the principle of relation back and forward operation of = its=20 precedents. Globe Life and Acc. Inc.=20 Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Com'n, 1996 OK 39,=20 =B620, fn. 41, 913 P.2d 1322.=20

35=20 Able Auto Cash Express, Inc., v. = State=20 ex rel. Oklahoma Dept. of Consumer=20 Credit, see note 34, supra; Short v. Kiamichi = Area=20 Vocational Technical School Dist. No. = 7 of Choctaw County, 1988 OK 89,=20 =B619, 761 P.2d 472,=20 cert. denied 489 U.S.=20 1066, 109 S.Ct. 1342, 103 = L.Ed.2d 811.

36=20 Title 76 O.S. 2001 =A75, see note 3, supra.

OPALA, J., dissenting

=B61 The court reverses today a trial court order sustaining a = physician's=20 (Holter) plea in bar based on her contractual immunity from suit. = Today's=20 pronouncement declares and gives retrospective effect to a new rule = of=20 Oklahoma common law which requires judicial approval of a = covenant=20 not to sue that is made on behalf of a minor plaintiff in tort. The = court's=20 opinion gives this plaintiff1=20 alone the benefit of the newly crafted norm.

=B62 I recede from the court's opinion. State due process is violated = by=20 today's retroactive application of a newly crafted norm of Oklahoma = common law=20 given birth in the face of a total past jurisprudential silence and = absent any=20 testimonial proof of the norm's pre-existence in Oklahoma practice by=20 long-established and widespread antecedent use. Short of such probative=20 underpinnings, a newly pronounced rule of state common law must be = applied only=20 prospectively. Lawyers and litigants should be accorded adequate notice = before=20 they may be expected to conform their contracts for immunity to some = obscure=20 rule of local common law plucked from nowhere which stands unsupported = by proof=20 of its actual existence in pre-pronouncement practice. Even if the norm = were to=20 be made applicable prospectively only, I would prefer awaiting the = completion of=20 an ALI examination and its full consideration of the new norm's impact = on the=20 existing common law.2=20 Moreover, I would be most hesitant to deal today with the problem of a = new=20 norm's recognition. Neither the factum of plaintiff's promise not to = sue nor=20 the binding force of the contract that gave birth to the claimed = immunity was=20 either directly or obliquely presented to the trial court for its=20 resolution.

I

THE HASTE SHOWN TODAY IN THE PROCESS OF ADOPTING A = NEW
NORM=20 OF OKLAHOMA'S COMMON LAW IS INCONSISTENT WITH
THE LONG ACCEPTED = NATIONAL=20 STANDARD OF THE ALI FOR
RECOGNIZING CHANGES IN NORMS OF UNENACTED LAW = PRIOR
TO THEIR INCLUSION IN THE RESTATEMENT

A.

The ALI's Restatements Of Law Carefully And = Deliberatively=20 Monitor And
Track The Development And Growth Of American Common = Law

=B63 Restatements of the common law on chosen subjects have long been = recognized as a material source for tracking or monitoring the = development and=20 growth of common-law norms.3 The=20 American Law Institute (ALI), a private national organization of judges, = practitioners, and law teachers,4=20 crafts the restatements, whose purpose is to identify, simplify and = clarify=20 selected common-law norms.5=20 The restatement process is slow and deliberative.6 An=20 ALI restatement on a given legal subject is developed gradually over a = period of=20 years.7=20 Today's hasty recognition of a new state common-law norm shortcuts = severely the=20 accepted restatement process by adopting into Oklahoma law a new legal = norm on=20 the basis of a single state's jurisprudential development of very recent = vintage.

B.

Today's Adoption of a Yet Untested Legal Norm From a = Single=20 State's
Jurisprudence Imposes A Severe Restriction On the Freedom of=20 Advocacy

=B64 Today's adoption of an untested legal norm from North Carolina8=20 imposes a severe restriction upon the freedom of advocacy without the = analytical=20 benefit of an ALI examination and full consideration of the new norm's = impact on=20 the legal system and on the existing common law. While settled Oklahoma = common=20 law recognizes a court's duty to protect a minor from liability for an = excessive=20 attorney's fee9 and=20 from an inadequate in-court settlement of a minor's claim,10=20 that is not an issue before us. There is no showing here of a = single=20 weighty element of public policy that would convincingly justify = judicial=20 intervention in private attorney-client relationships.

=B65 The contract tendered in this case as the basis of a physician's = plea in=20 bar based on her contractual immunity deals solely with a tort lawyer's = trial=20 strategy. By that strategy immunity from suit was allegedly extended to = a=20 physician in exchange for her favorable testimony in a minor's tort case = against=20 a hospital.11 I=20 would not restrict an advocate's strategy choices by injecting the = judiciary=20 into a field in which it lacks the same quantum of expertise as that = possessed=20 by a practitioner.12

=B66 For the reasons to be explained in Part II infra, even if = I were=20 inclined to join today's pronouncement, I would not in this case = give=20 retrospective sweep to the rule's efficacy in order to relieve this tort = plaintiff from her contractual obligation.

II

GIVING RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT TO THE HASTILY = ADOPTED=20 NEW
NORM OF OKLAHOMA COMMON LAW VIOLATES THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF = THE=20 OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION, ART. 2, =A77

A.

Judicial Development Of Unenacted Law Norms Is Guided = By=20 Different
Process From That Which Is Employed When Dealing With = Enacted=20 Law

=B67 Federal constitutional law fails to provide a meaningful = precedent for=20 according either retroactivity or prospectivity to a pronouncement of a = new=20 common-law norm. We are dealing here not with enacted norms of = constitutional=20 law but rather with unenacted (unwritten13) law rules plucked from a single foreign court decision. = Had the=20 norm chosen for today's adoption been one of English common law, = which=20 lawyers are presumed to know, it could have been implanted without added = study.14=20 When we are dealing with a norm of common law in the state, its=20 pre-existence (existence antecedent to today's pronouncement) could be=20 established either by extant state jurisprudence or, in its absence, by = expert=20 testimonial proof of the norm's general acceptance in the state by=20 long-established and widespread use.15=20 But if the rule to be adopted today is one of American common law = but=20 found neither in Oklahoma jurisprudence nor in the common law of = England,=20 litigants and their lawyers should not be bound to notice its existence=20 sans proof.

B.

A Court May Not Give Retroactive Effect To A New Norm = Of=20 Oklahoma
Common Law Whose Pre-Existence - Antecedent To Its=20 Judicial
Pronouncement - Has Not Been Established of Record

=B68 There is no record proof here that shows a pre-existent Oklahoma = anchor=20 for the attempted transplantation of the common-law norm. The court = applies=20 neither the common law of England nor an established state common law. = Instead=20 it recognizes a legal norm plucked from a single sister state's = body of=20 common law of which no one may be bound to have knowledge. In the = absence of=20 knowledge and testimonial proof of the rule's pre-existence in Oklahoma=20 practice, it is inherently unfair to impose the new norm retroactively = and bind=20 the physician in this case.16=20 In short, today's retrospective application of the North Carolina = common-law=20 norm to benefit the plaintiff violates the due process clause of the = Oklahoma=20 Constitution.17

III

THE TRIAL COURT'S DISMISSAL ORDER FROM WHICH AN = APPEAL
WAS=20 BROUGHT DETERMINED BUT A SINGLE ISSUE DEHORS THE
PLAINTIFF'S = CLAIM; NO=20 ISSUE PERTAINING TO THE CLAIM OR
DEFENSES AGAINST THE CLAIM WAS = DECIDED=20 BELOW

=B69 This appeal is neither from a summary judgment nor from any = other=20 judgment18=20 for Dr. Holter. The trial court's disposition does not deal with a = single issue=20 on the merits of the case.19=20 The so-called judgment is a claim's dismissal based on the physician's = plea in=20 bar - based on her contractual immunity - which is entirely = dehors the=20 merits. Before a final order could be rendered in favor of the defendant = physician, the trial court would have had to decide, antecedent = to trial,=20 (a) whether the parties had in fact entered into a contract for immunity = which=20 the doctor pleaded in bar20=20 and, if so, (b) whether that contract will qualify for the trial court's = approval. That stage had not occurred here before the dismissal order's = entry.=20

=B610 Because there is clearly a factual dispute over whether there = had been an=20 offer, acceptance and a meeting of the minds on the terms of the = immunity=20 agreement and the trial court had not been urged to consider the norm of = common=20 law pronounced today, I would abstain from dealing with that issue but = would=20 allow the parties to press it on remand. The physician's contractual = immunity=20 and the retrospective application of its judicial approval, if one is = given, are=20 both prematurely tendered and dealt with by the court.

IV

SUMMARY

=B611 Today's adoption of a new legal norm - taken from a single = sister state's=20 common-law jurisprudence - shortcuts severely the multiple-stage process = of the=20 ALI restatement work. The court's hasty and premature injection of a new = Oklahoma norm of unwritten law without any consideration of its impact = on=20 existing common law throws to the winds the safeguards built into the = ALI=20 restatement system. I would await a careful and thorough ALI examination = before=20 adopting the tendered norm into the body of Oklahoma's common law.

=B612 Neither can I accede to the retroactive adoption of a new legal = norm of=20 Oklahoma's unwritten law whose pre-existence is without record proof and = whose=20 effect on freedom of forensic advocacy is likely to be stifling. = Moreover, the=20 retroactive application of the new common-law norm clearly violates the = due=20 process clause of the Oklahoma Constitution.

=B613 I would reverse the dismissal order that falsely parades here = as a=20 "summary judgment" but in reality does not qualify either as summary = judgment or=20 as any other kind of judgment. I would direct that the trial judge first = reach=20 for its resolution on remand - and only upon an evidentiary hearing - = the=20 defendant physician's plea in bar based on a contract that confers upon = her=20 immunity from suit. If the trial court should conclude that immunity by = contract=20 was not conferred on the doctor, the claim could go on to trial of its = merits.=20 If the trial court should decide that there was an executed oral = agreement by=20 which the plaintiff agreed to release the physician from liability in = return for=20 her favorable testimony in a tort case against the hospital, I would = afford the=20 plaintiff an opportunity to demonstrate on remand the pre-existence in = Oklahoma=20 practice of the common-law norm that requires judicial approval of the = agreement=20 for the physician's immunity in this case.

FOOTNOTES

1=20 Because originally there was only one plaintiff in this tort case (the = minor),=20 all references made here to the plaintiffs are in the singular.

2 See=20 Part I infra for a discussion of the ALI's [American Law = Institute]=20 restatement-of-law process for recognition of additions to the accepted = norms of=20 common law.

3=20 Shirley S. Abrahamson, Refreshing Institutional Memories: Wisconsin = and the=20 American Law Institute, The Fairchild Lecture, 1995 Wis. L. Rev. 1, = 3=20 (1995), where the author states: "... The restatements 'provide lawyers = and=20 judges with carefully formulated descriptions of the [common] law and=20 traditionally have served as authoritative guides for both legal briefs = and=20 judicial opinions.' " (emphasis supplied). The ALI restatements are = scholarly=20 "codifications of American common law in various substantive law areas, = based=20 upon the decisions of the courts of last resort of the states." = (emphasis=20 added). Winters, The Contribution of Professional Organizations To = Stability And=20 Change Through Law 265, 269 (1963). As one legal commentator noted, = "Because of=20 the reputation enjoyed by the ALI among judges and practitioners, and = because=20 restatement 'black letter' rules are accompanied by thorough research, = they are=20 often used and cited. In this fashion, an ALI restatement of a rule can = confirm=20 that it is accepted by all or nearly all of the states. When such a = degree of=20 acceptance does not exist, the restatement makes that clear as well." = David=20 Gruning, Pure Economic Loss in American Tort Law: An Unstable = Consensus,=20 54 Am. J. Comp.L. 187, 190 (2006). According to Chief Justice Wilkins = (of the=20 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court), "The American Law Institute has = been a=20 major force in the sound development of American law. Its monumental = first=20 Restatements, pronouncing on the fundamental principles of the common = law, have=20 greatly influenced the advancement and unification of legal principles = in this=20 country. Revisions of the initial Restatements have permitted the = Institute to=20 reassess stated principles and to recognize developing concepts." = Herbert P.=20 Wilkins, Symposium On the American Law Institute: Process, = Partisanship, and=20 the Restatements of Law, 26 Hofstra L. Rev. 567 (1998).

4=20 Founded in 1923, the ALI is a non-profit organization of approximately = 3,500=20 lawyers, law professors and judges. The ALI was established during a = period when=20 both the federal and state courts were developing and administering = common law.=20 Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. = 1, 18, 16 Pet. 1, 10 L. Ed. 865 (1842)(the = Court=20 articulated a doctrine of general federal common law). Erie R. Co. v. = Tompkins,=20 304 U.S. 64, 58 S. Ct. 817, 82 L. Ed. 1188 (1938), which ended the = Swift era,=20 required federal courts in deciding a diversity case to apply state = substantive=20 law except in matters governed by the federal constitution or by acts of = Congress. For a history of the ALI, see Herbert F. Goodrich, The = Story of the=20 American Law Institute, 1951 Wash.U.L.Q. 283 (1951); Stuart M. = Speiser,=20 Charles F. Krause & Alfred W. Gans, 1 The American Law Of Torts =A7 = 1:18 at 61=20 (1983); Abrahamson, supra note 3, at 7-24.

5=20 Abrahamson, supra note 3, at 3.

6=20 When the ALI Council (the ALI's 60-member governing body) selects a = project, a=20 reporter is appointed to draft the restatement. The reporter is = "generally a law=20 professor" and " should be an expert in the field" who has " in all = probability,=20 written extensively about the subject." Abrahamson, supra note 3 = at 2.=20 For a discussion of the restatement process see James A. = Henderson, Jr.=20 and Aaron D. Twerski, What Europe, Japan, and Other Countries Can = Learn from=20 the New American Restatement of Products Liability, 34 Tex. Int'l = L.J. 1, 6=20 (1999). "Altogether, at least a dozen formal drafts, published in = softcover and=20 widely circulated among ALI members, were discussed, debated, = criticized, and=20 revised over the five-year life of the project. The Reporters met with = one group=20 or another in formal sessions at least six times each year and presented = drafts=20 at Annual Meetings in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997. Thousands of written=20 suggestions were received and considered by the Reporters, and countless = hours=20 were spent in person and on the telephone discussing every conceivable = aspect of=20 the project. Reported appellate court decisions and statutes spanning a=20 thirty-year period were examined, classified, and relied on as the basis = for the=20 black letter rules and supporting comments. All of this research is = included in=20 the finished form of extensive Reporters' Notes." Id at 6. See = also 1=20 Madden & Owen on Products Liability =A75:10 Restatement Third, = Torts: Products=20 Liability-Generally; Michael F. Sturley, Restating the Law of Marine=20 Insurance: A Workable Solution to the Wilburn Boat Problem, 29 J. = Mar. L.=20 & Com. 41, 52 (1998).

7=20 Id.

8 The=20 affidavit by plaintiff's counsel attacks the "purported agreement" as = invalid=20 because it was neither "investigated nor approved by the trial court." = For this=20 view counsel relies solely on a North Carolina common-law rule announced = in=20 Creech v. Melnik, M.D., 556 S.E.2d 587 (N.C.App.2001). There the court = held that=20 an implied contract not to sue a physician in exchange for information = and for=20 her favorable medical opinion, which the parents' attorney allegedly = entered=20 into on behalf of a minor, was invalid without "investigation and = approval by=20 the trial court."

9 A=20 counsel-fee contract on behalf of a minor need only be approved for its=20 reasonableness. Abel v. Tisdale, 1980 OK 161,=20 =B6=B614-17, 619 P.2d 608,=20 610-11; Sneed v. Sneed, 1984 OK 22,=20 =B6=B63-4, 681 P.2d 754,=20 756.

10=20 Settled Oklahoma common law requires only that an in-court settlement of = a=20 minor's claim be approved by the trial court. Abel v. Tisdale, = supra note=20 9, at =B6=B614-17, 619 P.2d at 610; Kirkpatrick v. Chrysler Corp., = 1996 OK 136,=20 =B619, 920 P.2d 122,=20 129 n.4.

11=20 There appears to be no need for judicial intrusion upon a lawyer's = freedom to=20 choose strategy by electing which is more valuable - a right to sue a = physician=20 or that doctor's favorable testimony in a trial against another party = charged=20 with the same tort. Moreover it would be injurious to the development of = an=20 effective litigation course to create a filed court record of matters = that=20 relate to one party's strategy. An imposition of such rigid and onerous=20 requirement for all litigation strategy choices in lawsuits brought for = minors=20 would enlarge a lawyer's liability for an improvident granting of = immunity and=20 may create new liability for those professionals who fail to submit for = judicial=20 approval every component of their litigation game plan.

12=20 Today's pronouncement calls on a judge to act in restraint of advocacy = without=20 in-depth knowledge of the strategy choices available to a lawyer. = Lawyers who=20 are advocates in practice are in the best position to assess the = advantage to be=20 derived from testimony against the weaker defendant. There is no general = principle of common law, and none has been shown here, that subjects to = judicial=20 supervision any major or minor trial strategy decisions in the = prosecution or=20 defense of a case for a minor. The common law of England and its = equivalent in=20 other states do not generally restrict a lawyer's freedom to make = critical=20 strategy choices in the course of litigating for a minor by requiring = that there=20 be judicial approval of every decision. Neither is there any Oklahoma=20 jurisprudence that declares a party's decision on trial strategy to be a = matter=20 of judicial concern.

13=20 The unwritten law - earlier known by the Latin name of lex non = scripta=20 regni Angliae - is the non-statutory law of the kingdom of = England=20 and Wales, also called the common law, which originated from = custom and=20 judicial decisions. Brown v. Ford, 1995 OK 101,=20 =B610 n.32, 905 P.2d 223,=20 229; Great Plains Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. Dabney, 1993 OK 4, =B6 4=20 n19, 846 P.2d 1088,=20 1096 (Opala, J., concurring); McCormack v. Oklahoma Pub. Co., 1980 OK 98, =B6=20 7, 613 P.2d 737,=20 740. The common law is distinct from written (constitutional or = statutory)=20 law in that the doctrines of the former are open to judicial = repudiation,=20 modification and expansion, while the constitution and statutes are not = so=20 elastic. Deffenbaugh v. Hudson, 1990 OK 37, =B6=20 15, 791 P.2d 84,=20 88. The common law, followed in Oklahoma, refers not only to the ancient = unwritten law of England, but also to that body of law created and = preserved=20 by decisions of courts. The common law is not static, but is a = dynamic and=20 growing thing and its rules arise from the application of reason to the = changing=20 conditions of society. Flexibility and capacity for growth and = adaptation is its=20 peculiar boast and excellence." McCormack, supra.

14 By=20 the mandate of 12 O.S.2001, =A72=20 , the common law remains in full force in this state, "unless a statute=20 explicitly provides to the contrary." The common law is drawn from three = sources=20 - the common law of England, of other states and of Oklahoma. Had the = norm=20 sought to be adopted here been one of English common-law origin, there = would be=20 no impediment to making it retroactive because lawyers should know the = common=20 law of England which stands recognized in Oklahoma practice.

15=20 The existence of a rule of Oklahoma common law cannot be drawn from a = vacuum.=20 The sources for the common-law norm advanced by the plaintiff should = have been=20 offered to establish its existence to the satisfaction of the trial = court. There=20 is no proof in this record that the rule sought to be imposed as an = Oklahoma=20 norm is Oklahoma's common law. It would be improper to give recognition = to some=20 local common-law rule in the absence of elicited supporting proof of a = statewide=20 custom that has been widely followed by nisi prius judges over a = reasonable=20 length of time.

16=20 Generally, when a newly announced rule of law appears obscure, = prospective=20 effect will be given to the pronouncement to protect those who would = otherwise=20 suffer from the law's abstruse or obscure contours. McDaneld v. Lynn = Hickey=20 Dodge, Inc., 1999 OK 30, =B6=20 12, 979 P.2d 252,=20 257; Isbell v. State, Etc., 1979 OK 156, =B6=20 1, 603 P.2d 758,=20 760-61 (Opala, J., concurring). Prospective application of a decision is = not=20 reserved solely for situations that deal with conflicting statutes nor = with=20 interpretation of a legislative ambiguity. It is equally commended to = those=20 situations where issues of first impression are not clearly foreshadowed = by=20 decisional law and where it serves to protect the public's reasonable=20 expectation of reliance on prior judicial decisions. Harry R. Carlile = Trust v.=20 Cotton Petroleum Corp., 1986 OK 16, =B6=B6=20 19-22, 732 P.2d 438,=20 446-49.

17=20 Due process is the gauge of fundamental fairness. McDaneld v. Lynn = Hickey Dodge,=20 Inc., 1999 OK 30,=20 =B614, 979 P.2d 252;=20 Shamblin v. Beasley, 1998 OK 88,=20 =B612, 967 P.2d 1200,=20 1209; Joiner v. Brown, 1996 OK 112,=20 =B66, 925 P.2d 888,=20 889-890.

18 By=20 statutory definition, a "judgment is the final determination of the = rights of=20 the parties in an action" 12 O.S.2001 =A7 681.

19=20 The word "merits" has a well-defined meaning in law. What is on or = dehors=20 the merits depends on whether the issue at hand affects one or more = elements of=20 the claim for relief or those of the defenses that may be interposed = against it.=20 See, e.g., Sommer v. Sommer, 1997 OK 123,=20 947 P.2d 512,=20 522 (Opala, J., dissenting); Pryse Monument Company v. District Court of = Kay=20 County, 1979 OK 71,=20 595 P.2d 435,=20 437-38)(when a case is terminated as time-barred, the disposition is "on = the=20 merits" because the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense). = Neither=20 the title given an instrument by which the issue is tendered nor the = stage of=20 the process at which that issue was raised below can conclusively = determine=20 whether the question is on or off the merits. Sommer v. Sommer, = supra, at=20 522-23 (Opala, J., dissenting); Roark v. Shelter Mutual Ins. Co., = 1986 OK 82,=20 731 P.2d 389,=20 390 (Opala, J., concurring).

20=20 Dr. Holter's defense against the tort for which recovery is sought rests = on=20 contractual immunity from plaintiff's suit to recover for harm to the = minor. For=20 her immunity she promised to and did testify against the Hospital. The = factum of=20 the promise's existence is disputed by the plaintiff.

Citationizer=A9 Summary of=20 Documents Citing This Document

Cite Name Level
None = Found.
Citationizer: Table of Authority
Cite Name Level
Oklahoma Court of Criminal = Appeals=20 Cases
  Cite Name Level
  1950=20 OK CR 85, 221=20 P.2d 659, 92=20 Okl.Cr. 1, EX=20 PARTE WALTERS Cited
Oklahoma Supreme Court=20 Cases
  Cite Name Level
  1986=20 OK 36, 721=20 P.2d 412, 57=20 OBJ 1553, Hamilton=20 By and Through Hamilton v. Vaden Discussed
  1986=20 OK 82, 731=20 P.2d 389, 57=20 OBJ 3070, Roark=20 v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. Discussed
  1988=20 OK 89, 761=20 P.2d 472, 59=20 OBJ 1978, Short=20 v. Kiamichi Area Vocational- Technical School Dist. No. 7 of = Choctaw=20 County Discussed
  1990=20 OK 37, 791=20 P.2d 84, 61=20 OBJ 1018, Deffenbaugh=20 v. Hudson Discussed
  1993=20 OK 4, 846=20 P.2d 1088, 64=20 OBJ 334, Great=20 Plains Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. Dabney Discussed
  1993=20 OK 89, 856=20 P.2d 255, 64=20 OBJ 2066, Campbell=20 v. White Discussed
  1993=20 OK 155, 864=20 P.2d 839, 64=20 OBJ 3587, Jackson=20 v. Mercy Health Center, Inc. Discussed = at=20 Length
  1948=20 OK 214, 198=20 P.2d 395, 200=20 Okla. 623, GAGE=20 v. MOORE Discussed
  1938=20 OK 385, 83=20 P.2d 157, 183=20 Okla. 487, J.=20 B. KLEIN IRON & FOUNDRY CO. v. MIDLAND STEEL & EQUIP.=20 CO. Discussed
  1937=20 OK 331, 73=20 P.2d 124, 181=20 Okla. 225, LAMBERT=20 v. HILL Discussed = at=20 Length
  1996=20 OK 141, 916=20 P.2d 241, 67=20 OBJ 1181, KRASZEWSKI=20 v. BAPTIST MEDICAL Discussed
  1997=20 OK 80, 952=20 P.2d 492, 68=20 OBJ 2217, RUSSELL=20 v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Discussed
  1952=20 OK 199, 245=20 P.2d 67, 206=20 Okla 567, HOFFMAN=20 v. MORGAN Discussed
  1952=20 OK 143, 207=20 Okla 1, WOODS=20 v. STATE Cited
  2001=20 OK 53, 27=20 P.3d 95, 72=20 OBJ 1938, GRP=20 OF TEXAS, INC v. EATERIES, INC. Discussed
  1945=20 OK 159, 167=20 P.2d 63, 196=20 Okla. 623, STEPHENSON=20 v. STEPHENSON Discussed
  1957=20 OK 110, 311=20 P.2d 241, STEPHENS=20 v. STEPHENS Discussed
  1917=20 OK 468, 168=20 P. 197, 67=20 Okla. 3, In=20 re SANDERS' ESTATE Discussed
  1918=20 OK 741, 181=20 P. 294, 74=20 Okla. 271, AMERICAN=20 INV. CO. v. BREWER Discussed
  1921=20 OK 128, 197=20 P. 445, 81=20 Okla. 197, In=20 re ESTATE OF HILDEBRAND Discussed
  1963=20 OK 156, 383=20 P.2d 676, ALLEN=20 v. HICKMAN Discussed
  1965=20 OK 91, 402=20 P.2d 911, SIMS=20 v. UNITED BRIDGE AND IRON Discussed
  1966=20 OK 85, 418=20 P.2d 661, NATIONAL=20 OUTDOOR ADVERTISING CO. v. KALKHURST Discussed
  1995=20 OK 2, 889=20 P.2d 273, 66=20 OBJ 355, Garrison=20 v. Bechtel Corp. Discussed
  1995=20 OK 11, 890=20 P.2d 922, 66=20 OBJ 156, Skinner=20 v. Braum's Ice Cream Store Discussed
  1924=20 OK 119, 223=20 P. 174, 97=20 Okla. 132, TANNER=20 v. SCHULTZ Discussed
  1995=20 OK 101, 905=20 P.2d 223, 66=20 OBJ 3044, Brown=20 v. Ford Discussed
  2003=20 OK 55, 70=20 P.3d 866, GREEN=20 v. HARRIS Discussed
  2003=20 OK 89, 78=20 P.3d 1231, APLE=20 AUTO CASH EXPRESS, INC. v. STATE ex rel. OKLA. DEPT. OF CONSUMER=20 CREDIT Discussed
  1996=20 OK 39, 913=20 P.2d 1322, 67=20 OBJ 1043, Globe=20 Life & Acc. v. Okl. Tax Com'n Discussed
  1996=20 OK 112, 925=20 P.2d 888, 67=20 OBJ 2925, Joiner=20 v. Brown Discussed
  1996=20 OK 114, 925=20 P.2d 891, 67=20 OBJ 3045, Phelps=20 v. Hotel Management, Inc., Discussed
  1996=20 OK 136, 920=20 P.2d 122, 67=20 OBJ 2065, Kirkpatrick=20 v. Chrysler Corp. Discussed
  1980=20 OK 98, 613=20 P.2d 737, McCormack=20 v. Oklahoma Pub. Co. Discussed
  1979=20 OK 71, 595=20 P.2d 435, PRYSE=20 MONUMENT CO. v. DISTRICT COURT, ETC. Discussed
  1979=20 OK 156, 603=20 P.2d 758, ISBELL=20 v. STATE, ETC. Discussed
  1928=20 OK 352, 267=20 P. 855, 131=20 Okla. 49, COSDEN=20 OIL & GAS CO. v. MOSS Cited
  1980=20 OK 161, 619=20 P.2d 608, Abel=20 v. Tisdale Discussed = at=20 Length
  2000=20 OK 31, 3=20 P.3d 705, 71=20 OBJ 965, K=20 & K Food Services, Inc. v. S & H, Inc. Discussed
  1997=20 OK 123, 947=20 P.2d 512, 68=20 OBJ 3307, SOMMER=20 v. SOMMER Discussed
  1998=20 OK 88, 967=20 P.2d 1200, 69=20 OBJ 3098, Shamblin=20 v. Beasley Discussed
  1999=20 OK 5, 975=20 P.2d 914, 70=20 OBJ 469, Prichard=20 v. City of Oklahoma City Cited
  1999=20 OK 30, 979=20 P.2d 252, 70=20 OBJ 1215, McDaneld=20 v. Lynn Hickey Dodge, Inc. Discussed = at=20 Length
  1944=20 OK 316, 153=20 P.2d 486, 194=20 Okla. 519, FRANKLIN=20 v. MARGAY OIL CORP. Discussed
  1912=20 OK 581, 128=20 P. 1091, 36=20 Okla. 671, BOLLING=20 v. CAMPBELL Discussed
  1984=20 OK 22, 681=20 P.2d 754, Sneed=20 v. Sneed Discussed
  1986=20 OK 16, 732=20 P.2d 438, 57=20 OBJ 998, Harry=20 R. Carlile Trust v. Cotton Petroleum Corp. Discussed
Title 12. Civil=20 Procedure
  Cite Name Level
  12=20 O.S. 2, Common=20 Law to Remain in Force in Aid of General Statutes Cited
  12=20 O.S. 681, Definition=20 of Judgment Cited
  12=20 O.S. 1083, Actions=20 in Which No Pleadings Filed or Other Action Taken for One Year -=20 Dismissal Cited
  12=20 O.S. 2017, Parties=20 Plaintiff and Defendant - Capacity Cited
Title 15.=20 Contracts
  Cite Name Level
  15=20 O.S. 136, Statute=20 of Frauds Cited
  15=20 O.S. 1, Definition=20 - Contract Cited
  15=20 O.S. 13, Definitions=20 of Minors - Calculation of Period of Minority Cited
  15=20 O.S. 16, Persons=20 of Unsound Mind - Idiots, Lunatics, Imbeciles Cited
Title 30. Guardian and=20 Ward
  Cite Name Level
  30=20 O.S. 1-101, Short=20 Title Cited
  30=20 O.S. 1-103, Purpose=20 and Intent of Legislature Cited
  30=20 O.S. 1-105, Definition=20 of Guardian Cited
  30=20 O.S. 1-111, Terms=20 Defined Discussed
  30=20 O.S. 1-117, Guardians=20 Ad Litem not Affected Cited
  30=20 O.S. 4-702, Collection=20 and Settlement of Accounts - Appearance for Ward Discussed
Title 59. Professions and=20 Occupations
  Cite Name Level
  59=20 O.S. 518, Emergency=20 Care or Treatment - Immunity From Civil Damages or Criminal=20 Prosecution Discussed = at=20 Length
Title 76. = Torts
  Cite Name Level
  76=20 O.S. 5, Responsibility=20 for - Negligence - Good Samaritan Act. Discussed = at=20 Length

 ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C86320.B18780D0 Content-Type: image/jpeg Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.oscn.net/images/oscn/OSCNButtonBar.jpg /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQEBLAEsAAD/2wBDAAMCAgMCAgMDAwMEAwMEBQgFBQQEBQoHBwYIDAoMDAsK CwsNDhIQDQ4RDgsLEBYQERMUFRUVDA8XGBYUGBIUFRT/2wBDAQMEBAUEBQkFBQkUDQsNFBQUFBQU FBQUFBQUFBQUFBQUFBQUFBQUFBQUFBQUFBQUFBQUFBQUFBQUFBQUFBQUFBT/wAARCAAoAJYDASIA AhEBAxEB/8QAHwAAAQUBAQEBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAECAwQFBgcICQoL/8QAtRAAAgEDAwIEAwUFBAQA AAF9AQIDAAQRBRIhMUEGE1FhByJxFDKBkaEII0KxwRVS0fAkM2JyggkKFhcYGRolJicoKSo0NTY3 ODk6Q0RFRkdISUpTVFVWV1hZWmNkZWZnaGlqc3R1dnd4eXqDhIWGh4iJipKTlJWWl5iZmqKjpKWm p6ipqrKztLW2t7i5usLDxMXGx8jJytLT1NXW19jZ2uHi4+Tl5ufo6erx8vP09fb3+Pn6/8QAHwEA AwEBAQEBAQEBAQAAAAAAAAECAwQFBgcICQoL/8QAtREAAgECBAQDBAcFBAQAAQJ3AAECAxEEBSEx BhJBUQdhcRMiMoEIFEKRobHBCSMzUvAVYnLRChYkNOEl8RcYGRomJygpKjU2Nzg5OkNERUZHSElK U1RVVldYWVpjZGVmZ2hpanN0dXZ3eHl6goOEhYaHiImKkpOUlZaXmJmaoqOkpaanqKmqsrO0tba3 uLm6wsPExcbHyMnK0tPU1dbX2Nna4uPk5ebn6Onq8vP09fb3+Pn6/9oADAMBAAIRAxEAPwD9BvDH x60LXUmN1HJp5jk2bv8AWI3HJyB2PHSvRbG/ttTtkuLSeO4gcZWSNgQa+X/Ef7M3irwJBGvgK9j1 3TVHOn6rPsuQ2fmIl+62Sc4OMetTeGtQ+IPwn8P3mteINJOiWKECZJLuGeLngNhHOOeM+9fM08bj sNLlxlO8V9pL8f6se5UwdCqubDTWuyvr9z1/M+oq8U+J/wAY9Q8P+KptEspYtPNuyEyyBSZQyBsf MMAc9ueK5bxh+1fc+Fvhhe6wumW95rItibZVmAjaVjhNw9MHJwexryOx8Tah8RfDY8QeKbRRdyxg zXFs+4jAxkqRnHtg4rlzPNI1KEVhJ2k36aJbdzTC5fOLdStH3dvmeo+Nf2p/E3hjw1cSafoem6jq aD5Jrq4eKED1IUHd/wB9L9a+Xb3/AIKUfF3TtSbz9K8L7Fb/AFSWkzRMOnDCYkj8a4v40+INd0HR 59Q8K6udUsVJVvsrCTyz6PEcn8V6elfXn7BvwX17S/gvfy/ErSdLuzr9yL2DT57OJ9kLIBlxgg7u Dg8+tVlVbG4pN1J6fj8z2a+GweBoe1lBSYz9nn/goX4d+Kes2nh3xbp6eFNcumEVtcpKXs7iQ8BM nmNiegbIP97JAP1zJKkMTSSOqRqCzMxwAB1JNflb+3v+zdpXwS8X6Vr/AIWgNl4f10yZsl+5aXCY JVD2RgwIHYq2OMAfVvwu+Imu/Gr9hXWbu3mlufFMOh32lySKxMs00cTKpB673Qoc9dzfjX0FKrNN 06m6PFxeEoyhDEYfSMnZ+R5h8af+Cmp0bX7vSvh1odnqltbOY/7Y1Qu0U5HBMcSFTt9GLc+grzPS P+CnPxPsrtH1DRvDt/a5G+MW00T4/wBlhKQD7kH6V5L+yb4y8AeBPjBban8R9NTUNEFvJHE81v8A aI7a4JXbM8eDuAUOOhILAgZAr9LNf0z4O/tMeBNQ0HStQ8NavJdWzpbSWbRG5s5CvySKo+dCpwcY GQMHg1hCVSsnJTs+x6OIp4XBNU5UHKPWX9f8Au/s2ftOeHv2kPDtzdadBJpWs2JUX2lTuHaLdna6 MMb0OCM4ByMEDjPofj7x9oXwx8K33iLxHqEem6VZpuklfkk9lUdWYngKOSa+V/2U/wBijxd+z98T E8T3/ijTLuzktZbS5srJZSZUbBXlgBw6qeR2rxv/AIKb/FG71j4jaP4Ft52XTNItVvLiFWwHuZc4 LDvtj24/66N610urOnS5prU8tYOjiMZ7LDyvDf08jS+In/BUXxDdalND4H8LWFlp6sVjudZ3zTyL 2bYjKqH2y/1rO8Ff8FQvGdhqUS+K/DOkarpxPznThJbTqO5BZnU49MDPrX0x+yF+y94V+Gvww0HW NR0Wz1HxbqlrHe3V9dwiR4PMUOsUe4HYFBAOOpBJJ4xrftO/so+HPjb4Hvxpmkafp3jKGPzNP1KO MQlnHPlyso+ZGGRznaTkVlyV3Hn5tex1e3y6NT2Psvd2vf8AE9O+FPxX8OfGfwba+JfDF4brT5iU dJF2ywSD70ci9mGR6g5BBIINfF/xc/4KLeMvhz8VfE/hm18NaHdWOk6jLaJLN5wkkRGIySHxkgen 4V61+xb+zD43/Z0m1w+Idd0y807VYkY6dYGSTyp0PyvuZVH3SwIA5+Xnivz5/aTsbjU/2lvHtnaQ vcXVxr9xFFDGMs7tKQqgdySQKVarUjTi9mVgcLhqmJqQ+KCWh+wvwz+IWk/FXwLo/irRJfM0/UoB KoJG6Nujxtj+JWDKfcGvFv2y/wBprXf2btM8L3OiaXp+pvqss8cov9+EEYQjbtYdd5618rf8E7P2 hT4D8ayfD3W7ny9E16YGxaQ8W97wAvsJAAv+8qepr0f/AIKrf8gD4ef9fN5/6DFWjrOdBzjuc8MC qOYRoVFeLvb0sz6c/Zi+Lmo/HH4PaV4u1WztbC9u5Z43gs93lqElZBjcSeg9aK4T/gnt/wAmueHP +vm8/wDSh6K6aTcoJvseTioRhXnGKsk3+Z9I1neIfDum+LNFu9I1eziv9Nuk8ua3mGVcVo0Vrucy bi007M/NL9t34I3Hws8QaFL4Wn1G48OX7yTy6X9+Oy27QAh+9s5PBzj1ryrXPjjL4c8HtaJJjEe3 Z3HFfZnxm8V2ni3x3qXh/WriBJ9MlZLeASeW6KcFXU8ZJBXPbt2r43/aO+D0raVc6hBB/a0KqWZo B5d0o9cDiT8ia/NcVLDYjGezcbRT9PU/T8vxDlQjTxGst7vr2PjPxD401PWfFTTWVzcQTzzBf3Mh Utk9OOtf0N/CHQj4Z+FvhPS2Dq9rplvGwlYs27yxnJPOc5r8G/gvoemeDPiX4d8U+JdIn1jw/aXS XiWDN5L3KK55yR0DKeOh2kcV+t8f/BR74Of2Kt4bnWEuduf7O/s8+cDjpnPl/wDj9feU5UaekXax 8/mtDE1LJRbu76dOxxH/AAVMvreP4aeDbNiPtUurPLGO5RIWDfq6V0P/AATHtprb9nzVJJgRHP4g uJIiehXyLdTj/gStXxd8e/jT4l/bA+LGmQ6XpM6wKfsWjaNCfMcBjlnYjje2AWPQBQOi5P3d4o/Z fudN/Ytn+GekP5+v2tkLsPC2PtF4H86RATjhzvjGexGayhJzqyqxWiRjXprD4OnhartKT18kct8d P+Cd3hb4m6/qGueDtZXwtq07+Zc2HlCWzaQ8khQQ0ROcnGR6KK+VPHn7BPxh+HKSX9ppkHiG2tv3 v2jQrnfIuOQRGwWQn/dU1H+x/wDtPn9mnxdq9pr1hdXfh/VNkd7DCB59tLGWCuqsRnG5gy5B6H+H B+yvFP8AwUh+E+k6DPc6RLqWu6l5ZMVjHZtDl8cB3cAKM9SN3Q4B7xahVXM/dZu5Zjg5qlBe0j0d v6t82eBfsP8A7Xniiw+IGmfD/wAYalc63o+qyi1s7i+cyXFnP/Au8/MyMcLtOcEgjAyD5Z+35bzQ ftWeLnlBCSpZPESeq/ZIV4/FWql+y94a1f4z/tU6FqsNsE8rWR4hv3hXEUCRzecfXALbUA9WH1r6 T/4KVfAPUdZ/s74maJaPdJZ2wstXjhXLRxKS0c5A6gbmVj2GztkiLTqUH1szpvRw2YRtZOUdfW/6 2Pt3wbdw3/hHRLm3YNBNYwSRsOhUxgj9K0b6+ttMsp7y8uIrW0t42lmnmcIkaKMszMeAAASSelfn 5+yr/wAFAdB8G+A9N8H/ABCjvITpUQt7PV7aPzleBeESRR8wKDCggHIAzgjmH9rX9vjQfHfgO+8G fD9LuePVE8m/1a5iMKiH+KONT8xLdCWAABIGScju+s0+TmufPf2XiHX9ny6X36W7n6D2Go2mq2kV 1ZXMN5ayjdHNBIHRx6hhwRX5DePP+T573/sd4/8A0rWvpH/gmN8Ltd06w17xxqMt5a6PeJ9h06ze RliuDuBln2dDgqqK3/XQdq+bvHn/ACfRe/8AY7x/+la1zVpupCEmranqYCjHD4itSjK9ona/t+fA CT4TfEiLxvoELW2ga9MZiYMqLS+HzOoI+6HwXX33gYCisX9pP4/x/Hr4FfDK5vJkPibSrm7s9ViB AZnEcWybHpIBn03BwOlfpn8YPhbpXxl+HWseE9XXFvfRYjnC5a3lHMcq+6sAfcZB4Jr8TvHfgrVf hz4w1bw1rVubbU9NuGt5k7EjoynurDDA9wQazxEHSb5dpHTllaOMjBVPjp/lt/XyP1U/4J7f8mue HP8Ar5vP/Sh6KP8Agnt/ya54c/6+bz/0oeivSo/w4+h8tjf95qf4n+Z9I0UUVscR5v8AFX4CeFPi 1aSDU7MW2okfJqNsNsyt2Oe/8/evh/xv+xX+0Ho2p3tt4a1/T/EGilS0RuLsRyMOyFXGM/U496KK 4auBw9aXPOCbPXwmaYnCLlg7x7PVHsPwj/4J9aIvw4XTvic8es6xIqyQSaev2Z9O3Zd4wyHa53u3 UFeBgU3/AIdd/Df7Zv8A+Ej8T/Zs58rzrfdj03eT/SiitvYUrW5TOWZYuUnPntftse8fB39mr4f/ AAMR38LaIsWoSrsl1O7czXTr3G8/dBwMqoAOBkV6jRRWyioqyRwTqTqy5pu7PCfjB+xb8MPjNqs2 ranplxpOszndNqGjSiCSY+rqVZGb/aK5Pc15bp//AAS9+G9vcrJdeIvEl1EOfKWaBM89z5ROPpj6 0UVm6NOTu4nVDHYmnHljN2PpH4V/Bfwd8FtFfTPCOiw6XDKQ08wJeadh0MkjEs2MnAzgZOAM12c8 Ed1DJDNGssUilXjcZVgeCCO4oorVJJWRySnKcuaTuz5l+In/AATw+FHjrU5tQs4NQ8K3Mp3PHo0y rAW7ny3Vgv0TaPaqngf/AIJwfCnwnqMd7qJ1bxO8bBlg1K4VYMjplI1Un6EkH0oorL2NO9+U6/r2 KUeT2jsfUVjY22mWUFpZ28VraQII4oIUCJGgGAqqOAAOABXgOq/sOfDvWPihL49nm1oa3JqY1Yql 2gh84SCT7uzO3I6Z/GiirlCMviRz061Sk24Stc+ha8P+NX7Hnw++PHieDxB4hi1C21SOAWzTadOs XnICSu8FWyRkjPXGB2GCinKKmrSQqdWdGXNTdmd98JPhVovwX8D2fhTQHun0y1eSSM3kgeTLuXbJ AHcntRRRTSSVkRKTnJyk7tn/2Q== ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C86320.B18780D0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.oscn.net/images/oscn/Welcome80percent.gif R0lGODlhkwEgAPcAAAAAAAEBAQICAgMDAwQEBAUFBQYGBgkJCQoKCg0NDQ8PDxYQDhAQEBMTExQU FBcXFxkZGRoaGh0dHR8fHx0aGBoVFCEeHSIiIicnJyUlJSgoKCkpKSoqKiwsLC4uLjAwMDIyMjY2 Njk5OT4+Pjw8PE8jGFAlGlgvJFkxJ2swIWwxIm0yI20zJG81J240JXA3KHE5KnM7LXQ9L3Y/MXU+ MGhFPXdAMnhCNXlENntHOXxHOn5KPX9MP0BAQENDQ0VFRUZGRkhISElJSUtLS09PT01NTVBQUFJS UlZWVlRUVFhYWFlZWVpaWlxcXF5eXm1NRHFSSndaU3leV2BgYGJiYmVlZWdnZ2pqamlpaW1tbW5u bnBwcHJycnV1dXZ2dnh4eHp6en5+foFOQoJQRINSRYVUR4ZWSolZTYtdUY1fU4xdUo5hVpFlWpRq X4JpY5VqYJdtYphvZYhybZlxZpx1a553bZ95b416dZB9eaF7caN+daJ8c6WAd6aCeaeEe6iFfKmH foODg4KCgoGBgYaGhoqKio2NjY6OjpaGgpGRkZWVlZeXl5mZmZubm5+fn52dnauJga6NhayLg7GR irSWjqadmqWbmLWXkLaZkrmelriblKqin7yim72jnL+lnrugmaGhoaOjo6KioqWlpaenp6urq6io qK2traylpLGsq7CwsLOzs7a2trW0tLWysLm5ub29vb+/v7y8vMCnoMOrpcawqsmyrcq1r8u2sc66 tdG+utPBvMHBwcPDw8XFxcbGxsnJycvLy83Nzc/Pz9bFwdnKxtvMyNzOy9/SztHR0dLS0tPT09bW 1tfX19XV1dvb29nZ2dzc3N/f3+HV0uPY1eTZ1ubc2ejf3enh3uHh4eLi4uXl5efn5+bm5uvj4e3m 5Ozl4+/o5unp6evr6+rq6u3t7e/v7/Dq6fLt6/Pu7PTv7vTw7/Hx8fDw8PPz8/fz8vby8ff08/X1 9fb29vf39/n29fj4+Pv5+fr6+vv6+f37+/z8/P39/f7+/v////79/SwAAAAAkwEgAAAI/gD9CRxI sKDBgwgTKlzIsKHDhxAjSpxIsaLFixgzasRIK93GjyBDihxJsqTJkyhTKvSUopjKlzBjypxJs6bN g+/SwXt3Tt+OF/luCh1KtKjRoyfBqUjBNEULppOQSp1KtarVm9ZULG3KlM/Vr2DDmuznleEtlwvv /RGrsJ4+f+GwVfNGTAWLYuvY6t3L1+A9eAO/WROIrAXBcwSJDWTDaWC9dwO9YRNYbAbDcPsQ/rsE CfLBb54HZp74r+0fFTa+EVyTQk3f17DDfsNBSyC6G7ME0iIzMFKOgZN0CNSHQ5fAazZwCfxG45ZA TmgU3psT4xYudAX77WFay+A0NSmU/g/kBKM2xHBndsRDGC9N010DaTG9FLu+faRwUnT3xyeFMYFq 9CHQMSrwcJwLbwi0iwoe+cNaLgLRkQI1ApURSULrsJECC0zJQKFA/2zHFFrDUfJUDg36owlTe5zH A1PeIBRHCnXQAINn8cww4n089khTLkwpN81S1/hTjX/+3GNGCmUI1EYKLfoDRxsC2cIUfMYwhdgx KUyDkD7upbDCGEvpMZAeXBUpkDpoMGUHdgJl0lRj8WTyx3oJnfNiCjFkZswfECqYAh23qCCeP3Uw 5UI9PjbqqEnr6JhCbk+moFokY/TjzyRM4eBPlin44c83MEB4TgxM2eKPeyrk1ccZ/wjd8wZTKnQH SQpr+dOHCpz8kQIMpX2aQwou5BZfUyqEA84YTAEykKYEwUNGU2ZmslQL4Qg04x8reDKQlfnBKtqj 5JZb0T1skKFjJ8gwxcI/57Sgqi4ssGaDPxqmkImuZPQTjxpnwJACLcQwFYM/3qxgnEH92MHUC4H2 R8w9ebCgan9UxhPJUjh4OVAuK0TCKRvh3NAUDJntcoY6jq2RQ2H+UcKVJv6kYzIN8BHWAiBzpCCg P/3Ukoa5RBe9UD957HAOeJzAEbAM/rwxNDIwdLJLCjNwqSEtxqhgzD5zjLFOGQOvsQYLOfSzRoIM /7HDDinYIdA6NMSBrgyK4ZuCJ/7xtJmCCmoKlMsLkujdiRg25MJpCpFwG2iScehATbs7zKICHcgM mwMuOOyo4At56CPDpP7UE8cNMRqt+uoq8hCjw2TqUuAnLFCDDg6Y+GPN32OkwSknO9Sx6RjZzjjt 1WaYGDjCfxTjxxjXCLxvezuE08YOx/iDjSY4rDBNGWNIeO9An6gw/QopjDHGZA4ytYKq1fBBTRxm gLNpCjy4kPunTZ3hQgp5uEc4NraHfpyDKcTIkAyqwboGFu0WQblfCtjQjxcwpXDIUFM8mnIMTHQI Hf24xVv8AQimwOEeW6EEQerxIhzoAR794BChxmADbOwCEozyh69SIIMZoGEdtf5gSi72gQzWmEcX TLFB6nR3AxvABx06yoEk7iGQMzAFEgQBhArmUI/8OGUpn6CMEM9gg8E48IxFC2IKjMMsMuSQIJ2L jpVUoKqCsKQl/uicGaj4MR4+DjwpeEEcWFaQxaUAh/6gxlaWMoa86YpPHhvIPSLYCaz9RyDnWEod oDUQz3zDiulzJKhSgANkbMQcsEilKlfJyla68pWwjKUsZ0nLWtrylrjMpS53yUtcbqIET0jlHaKQ CldCwQSWgEUqnoAIV1qiBFBIpRyi4ApWyqISr1hlK+6Ah2K6EhElMIEbVmmJGpygBnjIpiqhgIJK xPIVlZDFKjdhAinIM5auaP8FK1FRghKcwJ2qFMZFgKGBghr0oAhNqEIXytCGOvShEI2oRCdK0Ypa 9KIYpSgGKJCBh1rAAg/daEczmlAMLACkEcXARVVq0Y1WYKQGbcJF9tEOdtj0pjitKU53ytOe+vSn QA2qUIdK1KIa9ahITapSl8rUpjr1qVBVqjwwAowpfOGqWL1qFWRhEnk4ogtH0MIiuIHGgdgjFF5o whYWsQ2p2EMUXjCCEsJgCnHwxRFXVURBEvEFQoymrMAAgGAHS1iuWoQeClGFBAgLAAUcgpMNFEYE GCuAHjBCIPM4SGYVstnsIDYhn0UIKzLAWAAMQAShLUk/OksQ1kLEEYL1ADv+CFIIAFxhIfbQlGsH slu+KEMRpSjFIgSbiOAu4hf+kAYTlFCKgQhDCUqAhUCy0QToWlcJRghFQmAhAAAgQRbR6AUXCgAA QwwkEUqoQjn8UY4qQLcQAlGFEpbwDIU4Arq8KEgglHCFqfpjH1xQQhc4yY5AGAEERgjEbAcCBui2 YiDjcIISqDAOgiQDuolYCD4g4N1TQAMYhLgAAB7sDx9c17oiMOsWJlxhgXwBCSdWwg9i4Y9tSPjE R2hEQn5B3h68ghvNIMUUCLAIggCjCiMQwRRILBBnQJcVA3kFdJMhkOde1wlhWIZA8AGCGCuBCAOB hhZ80IMtgKLFCAnFYEn+4I6BGAIAWhjIKbwcAnv4gxVCiHESwiAO92Yhs9KorhKozA4rKGELn+2G F4IAAiQkAh8DcccVrssELpzir6ZQAhOk4Q97aAG6XdiINgTLDIMsNhgEIQAA2ioQDJQWANrV7GS/ UJBSAMAAzRCIKAAABIHAIgEB4MJnnQGAByxEzQAYRkHeLNOBdAEAoRYIMDgcAAcEAAAQQK5ABiHY RwxEHAgAwAgKQg7yBmIhwRAsWQdCDysMZLGlVQBBjgCADPz1Cq8GAI398YFXF/kg+FgsEwxyCn44 u7sHSIBgjwBpgSgAAPUViDQAQICB8EOwDXAAAwQbgFH4Ax/5/oBAXmH/gABIYAMDuLUpEqLm7gKg B/59c5wFMox825kV+eaCP4bbA4Hs4wEUX/AIAJBff5xC4QNwgGAxwGmBIAEACXBAA1xuhIH0ot4C ScZkl2AOUZPa1AAQ6EDIy2p/aAAAquCG2rkhDVQf5BcAOEBqBRICAOjVH2oGQj8MMQAGqIIgzMC2 QvrhAVUnYdkAcAJBnu0FgZhjAgCgwnrLQQUASKDFghDsBRpeBcGOmyBeoLgD2pyQaAhWAT24wiBI kQ2CyGIc49ACAKoA+1cMhBkDULXHBdILcYwD55cfRzMiDgIAkGLt3MgGMBCiDAAEgBwKAQUA/L6P fvBCxI0XyMYj7o9s/tz6WYJtcTtqG4L/vn4cRgBAIGBvWBEAQNvuMEUHGn4QNRuBCIL1QWZlPpDm PwD53PAKkMYM0QB7DUB04yAO+eUOCSAAnCYL0wcAjuAP2iAAHSAQz6Bwg5BZ2RAEABACDfd0d2cP whBurecPvoB1oYAABnB3XgcApVYQi3UFgVCDgZByZXd2oLAMywAMbocQw+UBB1F5VSAQakYCSQAA HBANBRF4EJBYAFAIFyAAVOZmAPABNhgIJAAA2TcKANABf7UP/TaB/pB5QAAAlzUMAzAE4kYQ5ZAA qQcAhLAQWFBaAYAEXUcQXwAAWWAQTjAApBAAGPBXAgF3E2AQxccI/zwYDNqWZgAQAQtRd/8mELHQ WNCyfQPhfQYAfgCgDNogDbEwBW1IEE93CAXhah1wBYUwCs+wXiznXfbAhrxGD/wnEM3nADy4DKKA EEqnDAVhBQAwCP4wZF7Ya7Vliv4QBgBQdQPBDgeobU9HCNqgDcLACAQgAKyWghcgexCwfCAxajAI dq+Wg4x1ClDoAAfhgWFghITlANwnEE6oECAweo8AAEdAEG/2atkXekVIEPimc2UIAKVwARJgDz4w AbAwigKhjLKgDQbQAAuWELzwBURAAhJwbd5VEHvYhwQRDQQwcGwYawNhiIjIWCJ5EBBIAL01EOGm ZQOBD93VdJg4Xf9xx4mMxQC9UBClWBCL4HKD9QN5WH8ZSQ9nCABCQAhw1n+MVXEH0YsFkW4XwIBA wA8SQADc0AEG0GL4Z14E4QNo6HR2uI4CkYKDdQA5+Y1fJ4MA8Ai90Ja9oGrkGAjB5QjSlRDbcG2r UBDPEG55iXe3lgidhwGuCI+CJ1ritgiJUHLKJhBvFgRu2QtLwIUCoQhGWRBFAADImHmqQAoAwIam kIKf5w/swAANsAiL4AHqpxBl53hNMH0ayYcF0XlrVYeDSBAkWRDFBwbBFQpQlhDl0F0ZppeL6Wq9 KXEAUACftXEu6Q/NAAAIwIlhQAhDJwKDORA7WRDLUAhYgAQfoGr/2SeUSIBZXgl1SWmL0xdcpQAG vNiJBtFvwAgK/rCHlXd4ApEFALAFpwgAvfl0REAI9mkAP4iCzvcFgQAADsCEHwGOMUgQiyV2AkF2 A3F2ZzkQQWkQWwAADTAK0MILrjYCo5F3H3eGI2BnhPmEBOEOoyECCNABLEpazOgPb6Z4ziaZzGkA AsBkrSAABeCLAakK/NBvJNAPoDkQSLkBLIqVEJkQP0AIaDYP+JdiegibA+GQD3CkQAefIwkAh4ib AGB7BFGhr2kAhkCi9lAKHAACkHahIdAOAkEP6fcDA4GaOiYQjAAAGsCJFcYN1lac1omZBfEKy+kP SDkFrxieAiEP/z0wWDPnD81noqJBegPhlAVBmXE3W80pWMWJcwnAo/5wCNPniiIIllRAECmYAQIR mNWJEQoKdg7qDxAqEGcXAkEwq0EABN9pEPbwA4KVAB1wgPWmDQMBoqKJmkxgcP4QeAZAq7PKAeuV kGL5XxkQAG4Xo4tHo/6QCM4HBFfgA9cGXwKhmf7wCgIgUEPqD+7gACBAELInjAdRc4IVAT4AAuSF AEU3EBvpj8k2EMMQABlAf7dJEMUHAsoKBItqEPggBIKFAB8AAgonAERAZfLQAcXWBFMAeQ4ArALx bAfQBGDQBAZQnkATfvFVbOvWp8g4ED2QrF5QCFTQAAPgpeB5ov9DB7LNl6zKGgL1KhCS+qXhZqj+ UHcSQIh1aABEYAV1JwB/B5Z3Vw6TtXJjiXUh+nJzZxG2BmsFIQ0Kd1lVhpfTtXGlxZEI0Q+h4AEf OwAZEAgkKhAXmgGuOFwAUASztWuvVg7a4GrB2Wlb6AFkxQQAAAL+tQ9e+QOc9AofkHID8AF8mn5i SYbYOgEVpgS8xkmZdwD7VhDcAAxbAG/O2QRV+Cwi2nCtUAAHwH3QEG7uNplQ13QC0Q1AV1qjmhD9 MAockHIGWgW5Fmlf4KsJMAUl22lZoHC7igX+5Q/ppp+OB3QccLvm2m/NtmWOgAThJlgg0JcIIXse AKn+cHUv13CD9fhqOfsMH0uGBJENSgdmneZ+gkkQ/eAIF3BtBTACP+gOqEmoAtGaB8C409d0ryBY IrCaRbEPrZoQ+BANKzkRy1DAFGEP0ZC2KSEP0SAOkPUS/BDACGEPzIBmBzEO2xDBFjcO0DAOxvoR +JANy8CmJUEOqgsS7iAN9FdWLvzCMGwVAQEA ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C86320.B18780D0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.oscn.net/images/oscn/home.gif R0lGODlhLQAPAJEAAAAAAP///wAAAAAAACwAAAAALQAPAAAIagABCBxIsKDBgwgTKlzIsCGAAAEG QnRIMeFEgRcrapQYEWPHjRszioT4cSLJhx9RZkRIsqXHlypjXpyZ0uBImDRxdsxpseTOnzp1uuzJ MShKoysV3jzKlKfTmgWXqvRpdCrIq1izat1KMSAA ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C86320.B18780D0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.oscn.net/images/oscn/courts.gif R0lGODlhMQAPAJEAAAAAAP///wAAAAAAACwAAAAAMQAPAAAIdAABCBxIsKDBgwgTKlzIsOHCABAh OpzoUKJAixQLBsiIMSPCjg1BDoy48WJJiyRJAlCpUOTKkzBNypSJsuRHmwRrztRJ06VBlzyD2qzp cyROoztjvkRq9OjPoRuFvlS6lGdLllNxSrRaNaLHr2DDih1LNmFAAA== ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C86320.B18780D0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.oscn.net/images/oscn/DOCKETS.gif R0lGODlhXwAPAJEAAAAAAP///wAAAAAAACwAAAAAXwAPAAAIwQABCBxIsKDBgwgTKlzIsKHDhxAj SpxIMIBFixQXXsQokWPGhB49UgxgkKNIhydBQkz5MWVIkithapTZkCWAjQNNwtyIs6LMlyJ76hQo 9OJNoyBp5tzJlGhTpyV/Ph16tCrVoVQPsrw6VWrUpVCril36MixGpAq3djXrtWBZsVmdAkWq02ZY t2vhtvUJVu9dqHH/otXqlevRp2P7vjV8Nm/jv4TR9gSMOPHhk5Mvs5VLs7Hdj6BDix5NurTp06gn BgQA ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C86320.B18780D0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.oscn.net/images/oscn/Legalresearch.gif R0lGODlhawAPAJEAAAAAAP///wAAAAAAACwAAAAAawAPAAAI1gABCBxIsKDBgwgTKlzIsKHDhxAj SpxI0WCAABUTXrR4sWPGjxsbhvxYcOTAkSZJQkypEaNKgixRuny5cuZClgA62twoUybHkzN1Au25 06NAoTmN8rR5MKbLkEufAj3KNOlUq1ahYtR69KrPrEsVOqVKFitVriV1Bn261STas2yveq0Ks6ra uGbDmp07VKlfpGDL7sWKU67hsmjfylVct+1PwmvTCm5qF29UxHjr8g3MOXFmrozTAgbMOanfx5iJ 9m2sGGlokoVpyp6t8TDt27hZ594dMSAA ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C86320.B18780D0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.oscn.net/images/oscn/CALENDAR.gif R0lGODlhZAAPAJEAAAAAAP///wAAAAAAACwAAAAAZAAPAAAIpAABCBxIsKDBgwgTKlzIsKHDhxAj SpxIsaLFixgJBti4UWHHih8ziiwYMqRBkxJRjsyoMmHLhy9XggyAkCNNgSU5DuxokudNADZ36pTZ sOXPj0hvJqWZFChSoTh/EmUYM6jTqFivam0qlOtUqlI1MlVK1ipXrz6zfl1olGxWlWfdbpW7lu3R sW/lxsU6dG9dsEOd9r2bU23aqIP/Kl7MuLFjiQEBADs= ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C86320.B18780D0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.oscn.net/images/oscn/HELP.gif R0lGODlhSwAPAJEAAAAAAP///wAAAAAAACwAAAAASwAPAAAIfQABCBxIsKDBgwgTKlzIsKHDhxAh BggwcKJCixEzagSAkSPFhB03imTYMaRBkyNTnvzoseJElhgtolSp8aVNgTE/5qQ4k6ZEmDqD4hTa 0qfIkkFvFs1p9CjQoSuhFm2aEalUph55sqT606VLqy17ch07lazZgmLPck2rtmBAADs= ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C86320.B18780D0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.oscn.net/images/oscn/blank.gif R0lGODlhHAAPAJEAAAAAAP///wAAAAAAACwAAAAAHAAPAAAIIwABCBxIsKDBgwgTKlzIsKHDhxAj SpxIsaLFixgzatzI0WFAAA== ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C86320.B18780D0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.oscn.net/images/oscn/buttonbar/red/Previous%20Case.gif R0lGODlhWQAPAJEAAIAAAP///wAAAAAAACwAAAAAWQAPAAAItwABCBxIsKDBgwgTKlzIsKHDhxAj SpxIsaJFiAEyaqSY8SJBjQE8GuwokKRIjiEBmDxpsiPIkhtbblQ5k6TNmQNX5sT5EqbOjylpCoXp M+jLm0Ndplz502hIpEgPyhya9KlVoVCXWg0KFOFRplq9ggxbVCnWq2eJ0tT5M+1arT1HclVLlajZ rHTXdi0Y1WddsXJ3qq2J9q7Zv3jdHm77t25cwkUF32z7uGdlxicza97MubPnz5wDAgA= ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C86320.B18780D0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.oscn.net/images/oscn/buttonbar/red/Top%20of%20Index.gif R0lGODlhSwAPAJEAAIAAAP///wAAAAAAACwAAAAASwAPAAAIpgABCBxIsKDBgwgTKlzIsKHDhxAj SpxIMWKAixgnYgxAMKPAiwxBVhQpUaRJjh1RKiSpUeXGjxxZAmC5kWbMmwNBnjwJEyHPmTdx5lQJ tGhKoDh1Ku350+DPpUZ7Do3KFCXUq1Y9Hnwq1OZRmViNKn0p1WfWqmWpQp3Ksy1RmDKPig1KdW7a om6R2m1akCTZtSn9vg2LNyvXlhUTK976drHjx5AfBwQA ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C86320.B18780D0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.oscn.net/images/oscn/buttonbar/red/This%20Point%20In%20Index.gif R0lGODlhbQAPAJEAAIAAAP///wAAAAAAACwAAAAAbQAPAAAI1wABCBxIsKDBgwgTKlzIsKHDhxAj SpxIsaLFixgzEgzAsSMAjgVBKuzoEaHIgwFCphy5kuXFkycfwmwpk6bDmCZtSpz5caVIkioH/iwJ smhKoEKPKg1qNGlPgUiHJpy5tOlTp1CXPjVa1SbXq1l7dhV71SrOjS2lfjXIU61Wq06lxvX5tm7W s2ixmi2ZNCrdrX9x7s3rNixJni7DAkZL82zhwoT/zjUcWCfSnHrHgt2suCnkyZsHf4WMV3HZuoJ1 iq3cubFd0KSJStZIu7bt27hz697NO2NAAA== ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C86320.B18780D0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.oscn.net/images/oscn/buttonbar/red/Citationize.gif R0lGODlhQQAPAJEAAIAAAP///wAAAAAAACwAAAAAQQAPAAAIlgABCBxIsKDBgwgTKlzIsKHDhxAj SpyYMIDFAAItZlSIEYBGhx8nfgzpseNBkhQjoix5sWNLlhhHXswY02XNmTARrtQ4ciBPmyVpsgxK 8qdQgztrEnwpMyhRoCGbOi2YdKrRplihAqX5EqlJn0qdGn0qNOvRqRW1ilVLtu3Vr1JP4pTakm1X s3W5fk3Jt6/fv4ADCwYQEAA= ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C86320.B18780D0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.oscn.net/images/oscn/buttonbar/red/Next%20Case.gif R0lGODlhQQAPAJEAAIAAAP///wAAAAAAACwAAAAAQQAPAAAIlwABCBxIsKDBgwgTKlzIsKHDhxAj Spx4MECAgRYhXjRoMSPFhB0Femw4EuPGkh8JhgTgsePJly5VbiwYU+RKljc5hszY8mJPnDRnYjQJ FOjPij6NvrR5lChSniWbBsUJtWbRqzaRFq3pEqXTnUKZLpWpM6tJn2G1Ut2KNqvXn3CXSiVrluvY tze7ij2bNqXfv4ADCx78MSAA ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C86320.B18780D0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.oscn.net/images/oscn/buttonbar/red/PrintOnly.gif R0lGODlhPgAPAPcAAAAAAIAAAACAAICAAAAAgIAAgACAgICAgMDAwP8AAAD/AP//AAAA//8A/wD/ /////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMwAAZgAAmQAAzAAA/wAzAAAzMwAzZgAzmQAzzAAz/wBm AABmMwBmZgBmmQBmzABm/wCZAACZMwCZZgCZmQCZzACZ/wDMAADMMwDMZgDMmQDMzADM/wD/AAD/ MwD/ZgD/mQD/zAD//zMAADMAMzMAZjMAmTMAzDMA/zMzADMzMzMzZjMzmTMzzDMz/zNmADNmMzNm ZjNmmTNmzDNm/zOZADOZMzOZZjOZmTOZzDOZ/zPMADPMMzPMZjPMmTPMzDPM/zP/ADP/MzP/ZjP/ mTP/zDP//2YAAGYAM2YAZmYAmWYAzGYA/2YzAGYzM2YzZmYzmWYzzGYz/2ZmAGZmM2ZmZmZmmWZm zGZm/2aZAGaZM2aZZmaZmWaZzGaZ/2bMAGbMM2bMZmbMmWbMzGbM/2b/AGb/M2b/Zmb/mWb/zGb/ /5kAAJkAM5kAZpkAmZkAzJkA/5kzAJkzM5kzZpkzmZkzzJkz/5lmAJlmM5lmZplmmZlmzJlm/5mZ AJmZM5mZZpmZmZmZzJmZ/5nMAJnMM5nMZpnMmZnMzJnM/5n/AJn/M5n/Zpn/mZn/zJn//8wAAMwA M8wAZswAmcwAzMwA/8wzAMwzM8wzZswzmcwzzMwz/8xmAMxmM8xmZsxmmcxmzMxm/8yZAMyZM8yZ ZsyZmcyZzMyZ/8zMAMzMM8zMZszMmczMzMzM/8z/AMz/M8z/Zsz/mcz/zMz///8AAP8AM/8AZv8A mf8AzP8A//8zAP8zM/8zZv8zmf8zzP8z//9mAP9mM/9mZv9mmf9mzP9m//+ZAP+ZM/+ZZv+Zmf+Z zP+Z///MAP/MM//MZv/Mmf/MzP/M////AP//M///Zv//mf//zP///ywAAAAAPgAPAAAIlAApCRxI sKDBgwgTKlzIsKHDhxAjSpT4oKLFgxUTPsB4UePGhhkFhnQ4cmDIkgVRejS50WLLl5QyuiRYUibM mB1xcmSpU+RLmChr/tQ50+dOoyNtIv3Ik+fJl3CUciya9KbUpkuzXk3JFKvUrT2zEgXalWbZsF9v mjXaM+1ZrF6tflRZtK3ctxPzgsSrt+9Uv4D9BgQAO69EwRPHWpU69yfPs5AJb0Xo+GXbx4K1Qo38 ePJJOCojir55MuTFqApVfuZoGqPJh6M/V5TdunVAADtVejy6sXfvyEdTSlzpu7jv1GUj3hZa1qbx 5741BgQAO9DdvVuDbr3c7EDmIykFBAA7 ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C86320.B18780D0--