Court Opinion

ID: 9579668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:57:16.643145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:39.614273
License: Public Domain

OPALA, Justice,
dissenting.
When one dies as a result of an actionable injury, the law affords but two remedies for post mortem recovery: (1) a common-law tort claim that survives by force of statute, 12 O.S.1991 § 1051,1 and (2) a constitutionally protected wrongful-death action created by the legislature, 12 O.S.1991 §§ 1053-10552. Today’s opinion adds a third remedy: a surviving spouse’s claim for bystander harm occasioned by the actor’s intentional infliction.
The two existing remedies have completely occupied the entire field of post mortem recovery. They leave no room for any common-law development that tinkers with the delicate balance struck by the combined components of our legislative and fundamental-law provisions, which have stood together intact since statehood.
Because I view the presently effective compensatory regime for post mortem recovery as beyond the judiciary’s power either to *251restrict or to expand,3 I recede from the court’s holding and from its pronouncement.

. See in this connection F.W. Woolworth Co. v. Todd, 204 Okl. 532, 231 P.2d 681, 684 (1951); Roberts v. Merrill, Okl., 386 P.2d 780, 783 (1963).

. The provisions of 12 O.S.1991 § 1051 are:
"In addition to the causes of action which survive at common law, causes of action for mesne profits, or for an injury to the person, or to real or personal estate, or for any deceit or fraud, shall also survive; and the action may be brought, notwithstanding the death of the person entitled or liable to the same.” (Emphasis supplied.)

. The wrongful-death legislation is protected by Art. 23 § 7, Okl. Const. (1985), which provides in pertinent part:
"The right of action to recover damages for injuries resulting in death shall never be abrogated, and the amount recoverable shall not be subject to any statutory limitation "_ (Emphasis supplied.)