Court Opinion

ID: 9790949
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:01:53.757503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:32.799640
License: Public Domain

DOOLIN, Justice,
dissenting:
I take issue with that portion of the majority opinion designated under I.
The defendant/physician in this case stated that her injury to the plaintiff’s bladder was “inadvertent.” Such a statement is classified at law as extra-judicial in nature. Such a statement usually satisfies the requirement of producing expert medi*290cal testimony as proof of a malpractice matter, Greenwood v. Harris, supra.
Merriam-Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (unabridged) defines inadvertent: (1) Not turning the mind to a matter; (2) Hpedless, Negligence, Inattentive.
The issue was presented when the trial court sustained defendant’s demurrer to plaintiffs evidence and entered judgment for the defendant. I feel that such action was in error. The trial court’s ruling accepted the unintentional nature of the defendant’s act.
The proper and correct interpretation, on the subject, required the court to resolve all doubt in favor of the plaintiff and all inferences to be drawn from the use of the word inadvertent should also have been resolved in favor of plaintiff. In any event, the use of the word inadvertent by the defendant and its meaning was a question of fact to be determined by the jury. Carter Oil Co. v. Johnston, 208 Okl. 564, 257 P.2d 817 (1953).
I am authorized to state that KAUGER, J. joins in this dissent.