 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Staley v. City of Oilton7/15/1999
Defendant, the City of Oilton (City), appeals the trial court's judgment on a jury verdict in favor of Plaintiff, James Staley, in this negligence action. Based on our review of the record and the applicable law, we find the trial court committed an error of law when it failed to recognize City's immunity from tort liability on Plaintiff's claim. We therefore reverse and remand with instructions to enter judgment for City.
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in December 1993, seeking damages for personal injuries he allegedly suffered while performing community service work for City. The record reflects that Plaintiff was convicted in February 1993, in Oilton municipal court, of driving under the influence of alcohol, transporting an open container, failing to produce a drivers' license, and failing to produce proof of insurance. He was assessed fines totaling $478, payable within 60 days, but was given the option of performing an equivalent amount of community service work for City in lieu of the fines. He chose community service work, and was thereafter assigned to a work program administered by City's utility department. The work involved clearing brush and trees from a fence line with a chain saw. In the process of doing the work, he suffered a facial and eye injury from a tree which hit him in the face. He sued City for negligence, claiming damages in excess of $10,000.
In the course of the proceedings, City filed two motions for summary judgment, each of which claimed, among other grounds, that City was immune under the provisions of 57 O.S. Supp. 1992 §§ 227 and 228. The trial court denied the motions, finding that the immunity conferred by §§ 227 and 228 was intended to apply only to claims by prisoners under the supervision and control of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (DOC). City then sought a writ of prohibition from the supreme court, in January 1997. The supreme court declined to exercise original jurisdiction, and denied the writ.
Jury trial occurred in October 1997. The trial court denied City's demurrer to the evidence and motion for directed verdict. The jury found Plaintiff had suffered actual, total damages of $100,000, attributable 90% to City's negligence and 10% to Plaintiff's. The trial court entered judgment accordingly.
City appeals. Among other allegations, it contends the trial court erred in its interpretation of §§ 227 and 228 as not granting immunity to City. We agree that the trial court erred in its interpretation of these statutes. Title 57 O.S. Supp. 1992 §§ 227 and 228 state, in relevant part:
"§ 227. Application--Exemption from Workers' Compensation Act--Liability for injuries"
"A. All provisions of this section and Section 228 of this title, except as otherwise noted herein, shall apply to eligible offenders who are:"
"1. Assigned to a work program for any government entity of this state pursuant to a municipal court order; . . ."
"C. All state and local government agencies, nonprofit organizations, community service agencies, educational programs and other treatment programs are hereby immune from liability for torts committed by or against any eligible offender described in subsection A of this section; . . ."
"§ 228. Tort immunity--Waiver--Insurance"
"A. The State of Oklahoma, all counties and municipalities of this state . . . are hereby immune from liability for torts committed by or against any eligible offender described in subsection A of Section 227 . . . The state, counties and municipalities waive their immunity from liability for all torts committed by any eligible offender described in subsection A of Section 22
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Oklahoma DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|