 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gladstone v. Bartlesville Independent School District No. 303/18/2003
ut any accountability to the tort victim. She asserts that state and federal fundamental law requires that government action affecting "life, liberty or property" must conform to that measure of fairness which accords with the minimum standards of due process.
Gladstone's due process challenge requires little discussion. Like the Equal Protection Clause, "the Due Process Clause does not empower the judiciary to sit as a superlegislature to weigh the wisdom of legislation." In the area of economic legislation, due process challenges on substantive-law grounds, similar to equal protection contests, are also assessed against a rational-basis standard of review. Given our rational-basis analysis in Part III(A), supra, we have no difficulty in concluding that subdiv. 14 does not contravene the mandate for testing due process application on substantive-law grounds.
In sum, while the legislatively crafted incidence of public tort liability (insofar as it excludes only those protected by workers' compensation) does at first blush appear unfair and inequitable, we cannot find it constitutionally infirm.
IV. NONCONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES
Gladstone argues that subdiv. 14 violates the "rule of reason" and "public policy of fairness" because it places the burden of indemnity on the wrong person - the employer's compensation carrier rather than on the negligent party, the public tortfeasor. According to Gladstone, subdiv. 14 is contrary to the collateral source rule in that it immunizes the public tortfeasor simply because the injured party has a collateral source of indemnity, namely workers' compensation. She claims that subdiv. 14 would encourage reckless disregard for public safety because the governmental entity would suffer no consequences for its wrongdoing whenever the injured party is covered by workers' compensation. Lastly, she urges that the exemption radically departs from the principles announced in Vanderpool and creates disharmony with existing Oklahoma law.
Gladstone's arguments target the fairness and wisdom of the challenged legislative enactment. When called upon to examine a statute, this court is confined to entertaining attacks on its construction or on its constitutional validity. A legislative act is presumed to be constitutional and will be upheld until the contrary is shown. We cannot be concerned with arguments addressing themselves to desirability, wisdom or logic of legislation unless it offends the constitution. By placing responsibility on a workers' compensation carrier for the tort of a governmental employee, the legislature has violated no constitutional norm. We are hence powerless to invalidate its act. This court is not a roving commission to scrutinize legislative fairness or to invalidate enactments that, though unfair or inequitable, are nonetheless free from constitutional warp. If we were to strike down all statutes that appear unwise or unsound, our course of conduct would severely undermine the tripartite division of powers among the three branches of state government.
V. SUMMARY
Because the subdiv 14 exclusion of claims from state tort liability is neither drawn upon inherently suspect classifications nor impinges upon fundamental rights, the rational-basis standard of review governs the equal protection challenge mounted in this cause. A legislative classification must be upheld against an equal protection attack if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification. In the area of economic legislation the judiciary extends great deference to the lawmakers' judgment. Deferential review is grounded in part on the philosophy that
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|