Warning

Info

Table of Contents
Lan, SLS '24 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Fritts v. McKinne

(1996)

Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals - 934 P.2d 371

tl;dr:

Defendant doctor whose negligence killed Plaintiff patient tried to argue that Plaintiff's drunk driving made him comparatively negligent for his death; Court holds that Defendant cannot make this argument.

Video Summary

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for Fritts v. McKinne

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Fritts v. McKinne case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingFritts v. McKinne case brief facts & holding

Facts:Fritts and his friend were injured in a car accident...

Holding:The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed.There are many patients...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Fritts v. McKinne case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Fritts v. McKinne | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: STUBBLEFIELD, Judge.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The plaintiff appealed a medical negligence case where the defendant doctor was found not liable. The plaintiff claimed that the doctor violated the standard of care by failing to properly identify and isolate the innominate artery and failing to promptly and properly arrest the loss of blood. The defendant claimed that the injury was due to an anomalous innominate artery caused by the accident and not evident from physical examination or x-ray studies. The defendant also asserted a comparative negligence defense, claiming that the plaintiff was driving drunk or was drunk while riding in a vehicle with another drunk person. The plaintiff filed a motion in limine to exclude any mention of drug or alcohol use, arguing that it was not admissible to prove negligence and was inflammatory. The court reversed the judgment on appeal, finding that allowing the jury to consider the decedent's possible negligence in the accident was a substantial error that led to irrelevant and highly prejudicial matters. The plaintiff appeals the judgment, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of her deceased husband's substance abuse history and allowing the jury to consider comparative negligence as a basis for reducing or denying recovery on the medical negligence claim. The court agrees with the plaintiff's arguments.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Fritts v. McKinne case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Fritts v. McKinne case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

Fritts v. McKinne

Chat for Fritts v. McKinne
brief-610
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.