Gomez v. Hug
Decision Date | 03 June 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 53111,53111 |
Citation | 645 P.2d 916,7 Kan.App.2d 603 |
Parties | Silvino GOMEZ, Appellant, v. Roland HUG and Board of County Commissioners of Shawnee County, Kansas, Appellees. |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. In an appeal from summary judgment granted to the individual defendant, the record is examined and it is held : (1) The trial court erred in sustaining the motion for summary judgment on the issues of assault and outrage. (2) The trial court did not err in sustaining the motion for summary judgment on the issues of defamation and deprivation of civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, all as set forth with more particularity in the opinion.
2. County commissioners are elected officials whose powers are conferred upon them by statute. They act independently as public officers, not as agents of the commission; therefore, the county cannot be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for acts of neglect or misconduct attributed to individual commissioners.
Pedro Luis Irigonegaray and Pantaleon Florez, Jr., of Hawver & Irigonegaray, P. A., Topeka, for appellant.
Terry E. Beck, of Tilton, Dillon, Beck & Crockett, Topeka, for appellee Roland Hug.
Donna Voth, Asst. County Counselor, Topeka, for appellee Bd. of County Com'rs.
Before REES, P. J., MEYER, J., and RICHARD W. WAHL, District Judge, Assigned.
In keeping with the duties of a court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the "facts" as stated herein are gleaned from the record and are those "facts" viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. They are not a recitation of facts found by the trier of fact from an evidentiary hearing, nor are they a statement of "facts" as this Court believes they should be found by the trier of facts at an evidentiary hearing.
On April 21, 1978, Silvino Gomez was employed as a supervisor at the Shawnee County fairgrounds. His immediate supervisor was the fairgrounds administrator, Robert Kanatzer. During the evening hours of April 21, 1978, Gomez and Kanatzer were engaged in preparing an area of the fairgrounds for a horse show. They learned of a waterline break and, after determining the problem, proceeded to the administrator's office to phone a piping contractor.
Appellee Roland Hug, a member of the Board of County Commissioners of Shawnee County, and a companion, Robert Corbett, were in Kanatzer's office when Gomez and Kanatzer arrived. As they entered the office, Hug asked Kanatzer, "What is that fucking spic doing in the office?" Hug then repeated the question, again referring to Gomez as a "fucking spic." Hug then ordered Gomez over to where he was, again referring to Gomez as a "fucking spic." Gomez complied with Hug's order to approach him and inquired of Hug as to what he meant by that name. Gomez testified in his deposition that the following exchange took place between him and Hug:
It is variously estimated that this tirade lasted from five to fifteen minutes. After the exchange between Gomez and Hug, Kanatzer escorted Gomez out of the office and took him home. Gomez appeared to be upset.
Gomez began having serious medical problems. He sought medical advice and treatment from Dr. D. J. Weber, his family physician, Dr. Vinod Patel, a neurologist, and Dr. James N. Nelson, a psychiatrist. Both Dr. Nelson and Dr. Patel stated in their reports that Gomez' medical problems were related to the complained-of incident. Gomez was hospitalized from July 5, 1978, through July 18, 1978. He was unable to work due to his health-related problems and finally resigned his job with the county in November, 1979.
Appellees moved for summary judgment and the motion was sustained and judgment entered for the appellees. Gomez appealed.
K.S.A. 60-256(c ) provides that a motion for summary judgment may be sustained only if the record before the court shows "that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."
In Farmers Ins. Co. v. Schiller, 226 Kan. 155, 158, 597 P.2d 238 (1979), the Supreme Court held:
"Summary judgment may be granted when the record before the court shows conclusively there remains no genuine issue as to any material fact after the party against whom the motion was filed has failed to controvert a showing by affidavit, deposition, or otherwise that the moving party is entitled to judgment."
In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the district court must view the record in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is filed.
Bowen v. Westerhaus, 224 Kan. 42, 45, 578 P.2d 1102 (1978).
Another test for the trial court was stated in Pedi Bares, Inc. v. First National Bank, 223 Kan. 477, Syl. P 2, 575 P.2d 507 (1978):
If there is a reasonable doubt as to existence of a material fact, a motion for summary judgment will not lie. Welch v. Young, 225 Kan. 189, 589 P.2d 567 (1979); Secrist v. Turley, 196 Kan. 572, 412 P.2d 976 (1966).
Did the district court err in determining, as a matter of law, that no assault occurred?
An assault is defined in PIK Civ.2d 14.01 (1977) as follows:
Words alone will not constitute an assault, as stated in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 31 (1965):
"Words do not make the actor liable for assault unless together with other acts or circumstances they put the other in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact with his person."
Gomez' testimony contained the following statements:
Viewing the record in a light most favorable to Gomez, and giving him the benefit of all inferences that may be drawn from the record, this Court cannot say that reasonable persons could reach but one conclusion from this evidence. When the other acts and circumstances are considered-that Gomez and Hug had previously had problems which resulted in litigation; that Hug was Gomez' employer; that Hug was obviously very angry; that the fist-shaking, pounding of the table and the shouting of invectives lasted from five to fifteen minutes-this Court cannot say, as a matter of law, that Gomez could not have been in immediate apprehension of bodily harm.
In viewing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ali v. Douglas Cable Communications
...accused, induced an employee to falsely accuse, and filed a false police report against the plaintiff); and Gomez v. Hug, 7 Kan.App.2d 603, 604-05, 645 P.2d 916 (1982) (the defendant employer over the course of several days verbally accosted the plaintiff employee with vulgar racial slurs, ......
-
Swenson v. Northern Crop Ins., Inc.
...152 A.D.2d 169, 548 N.Y.S.2d 513 (1989); Franklin v. Portland Community College, 100 Or.App. 465, 787 P.2d 489 (1990); Gomez v. Hug, 7 Kan.App.2d 603, 645 P.2d 916 (1982). In the facts asserted by Swenson, Krabseth did not use expletives or call her names. Contrarily, in some of the cases p......
-
Torre v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co.
...touchings and sexual comments, fits of rage, threats of loss of employment, and inhibition of job performance); Gomez v. Hug, 7 Kan.App.2d 603, 645 P.2d 916, 922 (1982) (plaintiff repeatedly subjected to racial slurs and physical intimidation). However, in Laughinghouse v. Risser, Judge Rog......
-
Beam v. Concord Hospitality, Inc.
...in a civilized society." 249 Kan. at 592-593, 822 P.2d 1024 (quoting Roberts, 230 Kan. at 293, 637 P.2d 1175). In Gomez v. Hug, 7 Kan.App.2d 603, 645 P.2d 916 (1982), the plaintiff, an employee, was subjected to a stream of vulgar comments, racial epithets and threats of physical violence. ......
-
Bosses Beware-it's a Jungle Out There Supervisor Liability in
...to fire her, threw files, pencils, his glasses, and the telephone, screamed at the employee and touched her offensively); Gomez v. Hug, 7 Kan. App. 2d 603, 645 P.2d 916 (1982)(supervisor repeatedly yelled a racial slur and obscenities at employee while pounding the table and putting a fist ......