Court Opinion

ID: 9553999
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:39:06.202914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:32:46.451703
License: Public Domain

HANSEN, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent. The majority is clearly correct in holding if the parties were indeed joint venturers, Scott is immune from sMt in district court pursuant to § 12 of the Workers’ Compensation Act. However, I am not convinced the trial court was correct in finding, as a matter of law, that Scott and Cross were joint venturers who agreed to share losses as well as profits. Where facts are in dispute, existence of a joint venture presents a question for determination by the trier of fact. Sigma Resources Corporation v. Norse Exploration, Inc., 852 P.2d 764 (Okla.App.1992). Questions of fact should not be tried on motions for summary judgment. Stuckey
*330v. Young Exploration Company, 586 P.2d 726 (Okla.1978). Once a question of fact has been demonstrated, it is clear summary judgment is not appropriate. Weeks v. Wedgewood Village, Inc., 554 P.2d 780 (Okla.1976). I would reverse and remand for trial on the factual issue of the existence of a joint venture between the parties.