Opinion ID: 1258052
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: issues to be considered on appeal

Text: In Travelers the constitutionality of § 984  the indemnity-for-loss provision of the six-foot law  was questioned neither at the nisi prius nor in the appellate stage of litigation. Similarly, no argument advanced below or here tenders for our scrutiny a fundamental-law infirmity in that statute. [10] The constitutional validity of the six-foot law (§ 981) was settled by this court's decision in Kimery v. Public Service Co. of Oklahoma. [11] To now inquire sua sponte into § 984's conformity to the norms of our fundamental law would be to afford appellate review on a theory neither litigant has tendered. [12] Today's opinion deals solely with those theories of relief and defense which the parties presented in the trial court. [13] SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THE EMPLOYER IS REVERSED AND PSO'S THIRD-PARTY CLAIM IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS PRONOUNCEMENT. HARGRAVE, C.J., and LAVENDER, SIMMS, DOOLIN and KAUGER, JJ., concur. HODGES, J., concurs by reason of stare decisis. ALMA WILSON and SUMMERS, JJ., dissent.