Opinion ID: 2623340
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the parties's respective positions on certiorari

Text: ¶ 5 Hunt contends that, although COCA was correct in characterizing Sisk's second dismissal as one with prejudice, [7] it is the legal effect of the instrument, not that of the pleader-chosen title, that controls here. The legal effect of the second dismissalafter the savings statute has earlier been invoked  prevents reinstitution of the action against Courville. This completely releases Courville and bars further legal action upon Sisk's claim against Courville. Hunt relies on Mid-Continent Pipeline v. Crauthers, [8] and Burke v. Webb Boats, Inc. [9] to establish that a servant's release releases the master who is proceeded against for vicarious liability's imposition. Hunt concludes Sisk's claim against it stands extinguished by operation of law. ¶ 6 Sisk asserts that COCA's characterization of his dismissal as with prejudice is erroneous. This is so because Sisk's dismissal expressly states it is without prejudice, and his motion rests upon the provisions of 12 O.S.1991 § 683, [10] whose text provides no limitation whatever on the number of times a plaintiff may dismiss an action without prejudice. Sisk continues that the true bar to any further action against Courville is the expiration of the statute of limitations coupled with his inability to bring, more than once, a refiled claim under § 100. [11] It is this procedural bar, based on policies of repose, that prohibits a third action against Courville, not the dismissal. These policies should have no bearing on his claim against Hunt, which was brought within the applicable time limits. Because his second dismissal should be denominated as one without prejudice, Sisk contends his case is controlled by Employers Cas. Co., [12] and we should let COCA's decision stand. Sisk urges alternatively he may continue to proceed against Hunt upon the respondeat superior principles espoused in Hooper. [13] This is so because it is only Courville's liability that is extinguished by Sisk's second dismissal. Although Courville no longer stands liable to Sisk, his negligence may still be imputed to Hunt and the action against Hunt may hence continue. [14]