The anesthesiologist argued that to allow recovery in this case was to allow double recovery. The court dismissed his concern by pointing out that the portion of the settlement set aside for Wendy was Mrs. Segrove's money and could have been structured in any way she directed. Insofar as the anesthesiologist's conduct was concerned, the court stated that the anesthesiologist was under a duty to use proper care or be answerable in damages. All the Oklahoma Supreme Court had done was to determine that the anesthesiologist was liable to a greater number of people for his negligent actions. The court determined that this result would not be inequitable.
Some people argue that juries award a certain amount of money for a particular incident.
Although in theory, recognizing additional persons who could be damaged by a particular negligent action would seem to increase the total amount a defendant pays. In fact, the jury seems to award a certain amount of money for the injury, and then allocates it among all of the different people who were injured. Obviously, the court did not agree with that argument. Moreover, the court ignored the fact that this had been a settlement. While there had been a larger jury award, the anesthesiologist agreed not to appeal it in exchange for the settlement.