Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Thiry v. Armstrong World Industries

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided March 22, 1983No. 57815Published

1ConcurrenceOpala, Justice

While I join the court’s opinion, I write separately to articulate my reasons for con-burring in the answers given by today’s pronouncement.

I

The first question before us is whether under Oklahoma law punitive damages may be recovered in an action founded upon the theory of “manufacturers’ products liability”.1

Statutory law of this state explicitly sanctions allowance of punitive damages in all actions except those ex contractu. The terms of 23 O.S.1981 § 9 unmistakably provide that “for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract” a jury award “for the sake of example” and “by way…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Kirkland v. General Motors CorporationSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1974
  2. Dayton Hudson Corp. v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1980
  3. Heil Co. v. GrantCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1976
  4. Wootan v. ShawSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1951
  5. Kurn v. RadencicSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1943

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API