Court Opinion

ID: 9560517
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:50:23.13033+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:05.958671
License: Public Domain

ALMA WILSON, Justice,
with whom OPALA, Chief Justice and KAUGER, Justice, join, concurring specially.
I concur in the majority opinion and write specially to express my view that the availability of manufacturers’ products liability cannot depend on the kind of damages plaintiff seeks. The majority opinion refuses to extend Waggoner v. Town & Country Mobile Homes, Inc., 808 P.2d 649 (Okla.1990) to the facts in this case. The factual difference between Waggoner and the instant case is that the plaintiff herein suffered personal injury as well as injury to the defectively manufactured product. That is, in Waggoner the plaintiffs suffered injury to the property due to deterioration and diminution in value of their defectively manufactured mobil home; while, in this case, the plaintiff suffered injury to property and person when the boat exploded and the plaintiff was blown from the boat. The danger posed by a defect in the product at the time it was shipped by the manufacturer is the essential element to prove manufacturers’ products liability. Once again, I am compelled to reiterate that the remedy of manufacturers’ products liability was fashioned to protect the consuming public from dangerous products.1 The right to pursue the remedy of manufacturers’ products liability must be determined by focus on the danger posed by the product rather than the kind of damages claimed. Accordingly, I would send the message contemplated in Kirkland v. General Motors Corporation, 521 P.2d 1353 (Okla.1974). Rather than confine application of Waggoner, I would overrule Waggoner.

. See, Waggoner v. Town & Country Mobile Homes, Inc., 808 P.2d 649 (Okla.1990), dissent by Alma Wilson, J., at page 654; and Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company v. McGraw-Edison Company, 834 P.2d 980 (Okla.1992), dissent by Alma Wilson, J., at page 982.