Court Opinion

ID: 9549876
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:25:47.952439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:00.296679
License: Public Domain

SUMMERS, Vice Chief Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting part.
¶ 1 I concur in affirming the verdict-based Defendant’s judgment, but dissent from the court’s rationale. I consider the Defendant’s agricultural land to be “rural”. Lack of U.S. mail service only refers to “cities or towns”. Title 4 O.S.1991 § 42.1 (the dog bite statute) therefore is not applicable. 4 O.S.1991 § 42.3.
¶2 The trial court correctly submitted the claim to the jury on common law negligence. Finding no reversible error in the record I would affirm.