Mooney v. YMCA

9 Citing cases

  1. McCann v. Foster Wheeler, LLC

    48 Cal.4th 68 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 194 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Oklahoma had an interest in applying its statute of repose to a products-liability action involving improvements to real property in Oklahoma, even though the defendant was not an Oklahoma company

    Although section 109 was enacted in 1978, well after the boiler in question was designed and installed, Oklahoma decisions make clear that section 109 applies to tort actions for injuries resulting from improvements that predated the statute, and that such application does not improperly infringe upon an injured plaintiff's rights. (See, e.g., St. Paul Fire Marine Ins. Co. v. Getty Oil Co. (1989) 1989 OK 139 [ 782 P.2d 915, 918-921]; Jaworsky v. Frolich (1992) 1992 OK 157 [ 850 P.2d 1052, 1054-1056]; Mooney v. YMCA of Greater Tulsa (1993) 1993 OK 33 [ 849 P.2d 414, 416].) Although, as we have explained above, plaintiff argued in the Court of Appeal and continues to maintain in this court that the trial court erred in finding that the boiler in question was an improvement to real property for purposes of the Oklahoma statute of repose, the Court of Appeal never reached that issue, because it concluded that even if Foster Wheeler fell within the reach of the Oklahoma statute, under California's choice-of-law principles California law would apply.

  2. Johnson v. the Black Chronicle Inc.

    964 P.2d 924 (Okla. Civ. App. 1998)   Cited 4 times

    " Spirgis at ¶ 9, 743 P.2d at 684. Even where facts are deemed admitted, a party must show it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Mooney v. Young Mens Christian Ass'n of Greater Tulsa, Tulsa County, 1993 OK 33, ¶ 9 849 P.2d 414.

  3. Durham v. Herbert Olbrich GMBH & Co.

    404 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2005)   Cited 28 times
    Applying Oklahoma law

    With this background in mind, we now turn to the particular facts of this case. A review of Oklahoma state case law shows that improvements to real property as defined in section 109 have included in-ground swimming pools, see Morin v. Coral Swimming Pool Supply Co., 867 P.2d 494 (1993) (protecting builder); elevators, see Mooney v. YMCA of Greater Tulsa, 849 P.2d 414, 416 (Okla. 1993) (protecting elevator manufacturer against claims of negligent installation, but not for negligent maintenance, of elevator); stationary cranes and their platforms that are themselves permanently attached to the land, see Ball, 877 P.2d at 46 (protecting manufacturer who constructed whole crane system that created port terminal on real property); a metal service pipe containing a building's electrical service, see Juvenal ex rel. Juvenal v. Okeene Pub. Sch., 878 P.2d 1026, 1029 (1994) (protecting school against design defects), superceded by statute on other grounds as stated in Minie v. Hudson, 934 P.2d 1082 (Okla. 1997); retaining walls, see Lincoln Bank Trust Co. v. Neustadt, 917 P.2d 1005, 1007-09 (1996) (protecting owner of wall attached to land); bridges that provide egress for an office building, see Gorton v. Mashburn, 995 P.2d 1114, 1115 (Okla. 1999) (protecting landlord); and floors inside a building, see Abbott v. Wells, 11 P.3d 1247, 1248-49 (Okla. 2000) (barring claim for

  4. Bowers v. Wimberly

    1997 OK 24 (Okla. 1997)   Cited 36 times
    Finding that in a civil case, sudden unforeseeable loss of consciousness was a defense to negligence

    This is an incorrect standard. See, Mooney v. YMCA, 849 P.2d 414 (Okla. 1993). ¶ 11 In Mooney, we noted that even where plaintiff did not contest any of the defendant's proposed uncontroverted facts, which were then deemed admitted, the movant still must show that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

  5. U.S. Through Farmers Home Admin. v. Hobbs

    1996 OK 77 (Okla. 1996)   Cited 48 times

    [If a party opposing a summary judgment motion does not contest proposed uncontroverted facts, the facts are deemed admitted if the movant shows that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Mooney v. Young Mens Christian Ass'n of Greater Tulsa, 849 P.2d 414, 416 (Okla. 1993)]; Rule 13(a), Rules for the District Courts, 12 O.S.Supp. 1993, Ch. 2, App. provides in pertinent part: ". . . All material facts set forth in the statement of the movant which are supported by admissible evidence shall be deemed admitted for the purpose of summary judgment unless specifically controverted by the statement of the adverse party which is supported by admissible evidence.

  6. Seitsinger v. Dockum Pontiac Inc.

    1995 OK 29 (Okla. 1995)   Cited 74 times
    Holding that corporate officer of car dealership could not be held liable for fraud where he had no connection to the relevant car sale except as owner of the dealership

    This Court need not consider evidentiary materials which were not before the trial court. Mooney v. Young Mens Christian Association, 849 P.2d 414 (Okla. 1993); Hadnot v. Shaw, 826 P.2d 978 (Okla. 1992). Here, however, all documentation was presented to the trial court.

  7. Ball v. Harnischfeger Corp.

    1994 OK 65 (Okla. 1994)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that the SOR "was not intended to cover products which are pre-fabricated in mass quantities and sold for the construction of the improvement"

    We held it to be constitutional. Later in Riley v. Brown Root, Inc., 836 P.2d 1298 (Okla. 1992), we upheld it against another constitutional challenge. In Mooney v. Young Mens Christian Association of Greater Tulsa, 849 P.2d 414, 416 (Okla. 1993), we applied the statute of repose to the manufacturer of an elevator, and held that the plaintiff's claims of negligent installation of the elevator were barred. But in that case the issue of whether § 109 applied to a manufacturer was not raised by the parties nor addressed by us. This, then, is the first occasion on which this question has been posed directly to this Court.

  8. Narvaez v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.

    989 P.2d 1051 (Okla. Civ. App. 1999)   Cited 5 times
    In Narvaez v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 989 P.2d 1051 (Okla.Ct.App. 1999), the court considered whether a plaintiff had UM coverage for injuries sustained during an assault in a hotel parking lot prior to the assailant's theft of the plaintiff's vehicle.

    Hutchins v. Silicone Specialties, Inc., 1993 OK 70, 881 P.2d 64, 66-67; Erwin v. Frazier, 1989 OK 95, 786 P.2d 61. Even though there may be multiple issues of disputed fact which would normally preclude summary judgment and would otherwise warrant submission of this matter to a jury, a movant must nevertheless show that, as a matter of law, he may recover. Mooney v. YMCA of Greater Tulsa, 1993 OK 33, 849 P.2d 414. ¶ 3 Narvaez was a guest at a La Quinta Inn located in Oklahoma City when he was assaulted on July 2, 1996, in the parking lot.

  9. Butler v. Oklahoma City P. School Sys

    871 P.2d 444 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994)   Cited 9 times
    Granting summary judgment for the defendant and commenting that "[s]peculation is the antithesis of proximate cause"

    Appellant has failed to meet this burden. Even though Appellee's "undisputed facts" are deemed admitted due to Appellant's failure to contest them, Appellee, as movant, must still show itself entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Mooney v. YMCA of Greater Tulsa, 849 P.2d 414 (Okla. 1993). The undisputed and uncontested facts show that another student came up to Appellant's son who was sitting on the gymnasium bleachers, and without warning or provocation pushed or threw him off the bleachers and onto the floor.