Wilson v. Gipson
| Decision Date | 05 April 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 62087,No. I-89,I-89,62087 |
| Citation | 753 P.2d 1349 |
| Parties | 46 Ed. Law Rep. 825, 1988 OK 35 Al WILSON; Norman Harding, Independent School District, a public corporation; the Home Indemnity Company, a corporation; and Phelix Scott, Appellees, v. Teresa GIPSON, mother and next friend of Dominga Michelle Gipson, a minor; Wayne Johnston and Edith Johnston, parents and next friends of Carroll A. Johnston, a minor; Janet S. Bailey, mother and next friend of Troy L. Kelley, a minor; Jo Anne Livingston, mother and next friend of John David Livingston, a minor; Joseph Manora and Odessa R. Manora, parents and next friends of Kareen Ralon Manora, deceased; Sgt. James E. Lewis and Brenda Joyce Lewis, parents and next friends of Angela Martin, deceased; Selma Mosley, mother and next friend of Calvin J. Mosley, a minor; James J. Motes and Margaret Parton Motes, parents and next friends of Paul Clinton Motes, deceased; James J. Motes and Margaret Parton Motes, parents and next friends of James Warren Motes, a minor; Nadine Page, mother and next friend of Robert Page, a minor; Howard B. Pepper and Debra L. Pepper, parents and next friends of Stacy Pepper, a minor; Richard McKnight and Cherry McKnight, parents and next friends of Marlow Tremaine Wallace, deceased; Shirley Ann Stoneking, mother and next friend of Lissa L. Woolsey, a minor; Shirley Ann Stoneking, mother and next friend of Meadow Woolsey, a minor, Appellants. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County; David M. Cook and Carmon C. Harris, District Judges.
Parents of children injured and killed in explosion of water heater at a public school brought an action against the school district and its employees. School district and insurance carrier filed an interpleader proceeding and paid the policy limits to the trial court for distribution. The court distributed all funds and relieved school district, its agents and employees, and insurance carrier from any further liability and/or duty to defend. The parents appealed.
ORDERS OF THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.
Gina L. Hendryx, John W. Norman, Inc., Oklahoma City, for appellants.
Edwin F. Garrison, Looney, Nichols, Johnson & Hayes, Oklahoma City, for appellees.
On January 19, 1982, a hot water heater in the cafeteria at Star Elementary School in Spencer, Oklahoma, was malfunctioning. It exploded at approximately 12:15 P.M. while the children were eating lunch. Five children and one teacher died, and several other children were injured as a result of the explosion.
The parents of children injured and killed in the explosion filed suit against the Independent School District No. 89, three school district employees, and various manufacturers of the hot water tank and its component parts. The school district, its employees, and their insurer filed a petition for interpleader naming thirty-nine (39) injured or deceased children as defendants and the providers of medical care who had liens for care given to the children.
The insurance carrier tendered $300,000.00 to the court as the school district's maximum liability pursuant to the school's insurance policy and 51 O.S.1981 § 151 et seq.
The trial court ruled that the limitation of damages pursuant to the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act of Oklahoma did not violate either the Oklahoma Constitution or the United States Constitution. The court further ruled that the $300,000.00 payment to the court relieved the school district, its servants, agents, and employees, and their insurance carrier of all liability.
The court distributed funds for special damages and then divided up the remainder of approximately $219,000.00 by distributing $18,221.66 to each family of a child who died in the explosion, and then distributing the remainder of the funds to the injured children.
The parents and injured children appealed.
The parents' first assignment of error is that sovereign immunity does not confer any immunity to the school district because the operation of a public school and the An analysis of proprietary and governmental functions is ordinarily not necessary because the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, 51 O.S.1981 §§ 151 et seq., applied to both governmental and proprietary functions. 51 O.S. 1981 § 166; Black v. Ball Janitorial Service Inc., 730 P.2d 510, 513-514 (Okl.1986). The Act provides that a school district is a "political subdivision" in applying the Act, and its application in the case before us is appropriate. 51 O.S.1981 § 152(6)(b). The issue of whether the maintenance of a public school hot water heater is a proprietary function is considered below with the parents' claims based on the Oklahoma Constitution.
maintenance of a hot water heater are proprietary functions of government. We noted in Williams v. State, 678 P.2d 259 (Okl.1984), that the doctrine of sovereign immunity remained undisturbed by our decision in Vanderpool v. State, 672 P.2d 1153 (Okl.1983), until October 1, 1985. Id. 678 P.2d at 260 N.1. The case before us is governed by the applicable law prior to Vanderpool v. State, supra.
The parents assert that the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They claim that 51 O.S.1981 § 154, creates two arbitrary categories of claimants: those claimants who may recover up to $50,000.00 and those claimants who may recover less than $50,000.00 due to the number of claims arising out of a single occurrence. 51 O.S.1981 § 154(A) provides:
A. The liability of a political subdivision or an employee on claims within the scope of this act shall not exceed:
1. Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) to any claimant for any number of claims for damage to or destruction of property, including consequential damages arising out of a single accident or occurrence;
2. Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) to any claimant for all other claims arising out of a single accident or occurrence; or
3. Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000.00) for any number of claims arising out of a single occurrence or accident.
A legitimate governmental purpose is served by imposing a limit on the amount of damages recoverable from governmental entities. An Equal Protection Clause challenge to limited governmental liability due to the different amount of damages recoverable by victims of governmental tortfeasors as opposed to non-governmental tortfeasors was not successful in Wisconsin.
"The rationale that limited liability is needed to protect governmental functions is not entirely without pragmatic support. If public entities with substantial fiscal resources are involved the financial problem may be minimal. For small entities or those with more limited financial powers a judgment can have serious consequences. Val Alstyne, Governmental Tort Liability: A Decade of Change, 1966 U. of Ill.L.F. 919, 971 n. 365.
The legislative classification Stanhope challenges expresses a legislative balancing of two purposes: To compensate victims of government tortfeasors while at the same time protecting the public treasury.
We are unwilling to say that the legislature has no rational basis to fear that full monetary responsibility entails the risk of insolvency or intolerable tax burdens. Funds must be available in the public treasury to pay for essential governmental services; taxes must be kept at reasonable levels; it is for the legislature to choose how limited public funds will be spent. It is within the legitimate power of the legislature to take steps to preserve sufficient public funds to ensure that the government will be able to continue to provide those services which Nor did an Equal Protection Clause challenge to different amounts of damages recoverable by different classifications of victims of governmental tortfeasors meet with success.
It is the legislature's function to evaluate the risk, the extent of exposure to liability, the need to compensate citizens for injury, the availability of and cost of insurance, and the financial condition of the governmental units." Sambs v. City of Brookfield, 97 Wis.2d 356, 293 N.W.2d 504, 514 (1980).
In State v. Silva, 86 Nev. 911, 478 P.2d 591 (1970) the court rejected an Equal Protection Clause challenge to a statute limiting liability to $25,000.00.
"For example, any claimant whose damages do not exceed $25,000 has the opportunity to obtain a full recovery, whereas one whose damages exceed that amount has only the opportunity to recover a percentage of his loss.
... All persons injured through the negligence of the State have been granted the right to bring suit (except where immunity is retained), and this right is granted equally and without discrimination on any basis whatsoever. It seems to us quite impossible to devise a scheme of equality in the awards of damages. The 'total damages sustained' by a claimant is an uncertain amount in any case. That amount is what negotiation or trial declares it to be, and the variation in result for substantially similar injuries is remarkable. A percentage of the 'total damages sustained' is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Bank of Turley v. Fidelity and Deposit Ins. Co. of Maryland
... ... CERTIFIED QUESTIONS ANSWERED ... ALMA WILSON, C.J., and LAVENDER, SIMMS, HARGRAVE, SUMMERS and WATT, JJ., concur ... KAUGER, V.C.J., concurs in result ... See Part II supra; Shebester, supra note 4 at 137. See in this connection Wilson v. Gipson, Okl., 753 P.2d 1349, 1356 (1988) ... 29 Comunale v. Traders & General Ins. Co., 50 Cal.2d 654, 328 P.2d 198, 200-201, 203 (1958)(a duty of good ... ...
-
Beason v. I. E. Miller Servs., Inc.
... ... 23 7 protects the plaintiff's right to proceed to recover for injuries resulting in death). 10 Wilson v. Gipson , 1988 OK 35, 753 P.2d 1349, 1354-1355. 11 Brookshire v. Burkhart , 1929 OK 428, 283 P. 571, 577 (time specified in a wrongful death ... ...
-
Badillo v. Mid Century Ins. Co.
... ... A tort claim also lies for a breach of duty to defend an insured against third-party claims covered by the policy. Wilson v. Gipson, 1988 OK 35, ¶ 26, 753 P.2d 1349, 1356 ... 6. "Bad faith is the antithesis of good faith and our Legislature has told us in statutory ... ...
-
Barrios v. Haskell Cnty. Pub. Facilities Auth.
... ... 20 Wilson v. Gipson , 1988 OK 35, 753 P.2d 1349, 1354 citing Neal v. Donahue , 1980 OK 82, 611 P.2d 1125, 1129. 21 51 O.S.2011 155 (25) (and as amended) ... ...