# Kirkland v. General Motors Corporation

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · April 23, 1974 · 521 P.2d 1353

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9599491

## Case

- **Full name:** Benita Helen KIRKLAND, Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, a Foreign Corporation, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** April 23, 1974
- **Citations:** 521 P.2d 1353; 1974 OK 52
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Irwin
- **Judges:** Doolin, Berry, Hodges, Lavender, Barnes, Simms, Davison, Irwin, Williams
- **Cited by:** 276 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9599491

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that a product is unreasonably dangerous when it is “dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics”
- stating that statutory comparative negligence scheme has “no application to manufacturers’ products liability, for its application is specifically limited to negligence actions”
- holding that to prevail on strict liability claim for a defective product, plaintiff must show the product was defective when it left the defendant’s “possession and control”
- holding a plaintiff must prove that the defect existed in the product at the time the product left the possession and control of the manufacturer or seller

## Opinion text

*1370 IRWIN, Justice
(dissenting).
The majority opinion states that “the issue for us in this case is the present and the future of products liability litigation in Oklahoma”, and discusses in detail the practical applications raised by the adoption of strict liability in the areas of limitation, defenses, parties, proofs, etc.
In my opinion, decisional law concerning manufacturers’ products liability would be better developed by resolving issues presented in each particular case and we should not determine in this case issues neither presented nor necessary to decide. My opinion is in harmony with Edwards v. Hanna Lumber Company, Okl., 415 P.2d 980 ; Eberle v. State ex rel. Department of Highways, Okl., 385 P.2d 868 ; In Re Fletcher’s Estate, Okl., 308 P.2d 304 ; and cases of similar import which, in effect, support the proposition that this Court on appeal will not determine abstract questions of law.
I agree that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed but I would affirm such judgment under our present de-cisional law.
I respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice DAVISON concurs in the views herein expressed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9599491. Public record. Not legal advice.