Court Opinion

ID: 9540265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:14:10.103596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:46.295819
License: Public Domain

SIMMS, Justice,
concurring.
I concur with the majority view. It is not without irony that given these same circumstances today, this injured student, whom the Dissenting Opinion argues should be allowed to come within the scope of the Act as an “apprentice”, would be barred from proceeding under the Act by this Court’s decision in Wilsey Bennett Co. v. Grant, 632 P.2d 382, 52 OBAJ 1379 (June 9,1981). On his first Form 3 he named only Davis as a respondent. The school district was not added on his claim until one year from the date of the injury had passed. Under the rule pronounced in Wilsey Bennett, the claim against the school would be barred even though the filing was timely against Davis.