 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Carlson v. City of Broken Arrow12/15/1992
As Corrected December 29, 1992
MARCELLA JEAN CARLSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SURVIVING SPOUSE OF CARL MARIAN CARLSON, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
CITY OF BROKEN ARROW, OKLAHOMA, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.
Joseph F. Clark, Jr., Tulsa, for plaintiff-respondent.
Michael R. Vanderburg, City Atty., Broken Arrow and Nancy McNair, Tulsa, for defendant-petitioner.
CERTIFIED ORDER VACATED.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: KAUGER, Justice.
A single issue is presented - whether under the Governmental Tort Claims Act, 51 O.S. 1991 § 151 et seq., wrongful death claims against a political subdivision must be aggregated. We find that the express language of 51 O.S.Supp. 1992 § 152 (4)(c) requires multiple death claims against a political subdivision to be aggregated.
FACTS
The plaintiff-respondent, Marcella Jean Carlson (Carlson/wife), filed a wrongful death action against the defendant-petitioner, City of Broken Arrow (City). The claim arose out of the death of Carlson's husband, Carl Marian Carlson (husband). Carlson's action contained three claims - individually, as surviving spouse, and on behalf of her minor child. The City filed a motion to dismiss asserting that: 1) pursuant to 51 O.S.Supp. 1992 § 152 (4)(c), all three claims were required to be aggregated; and 2) 51 O.S. 1991 § 154 limited the total recovery to $100,000.00.
Arguments were heard on the aggregation issue on February 14, 1992. On February 27, the trial court ruled that it was bound by the decision in Gleason v. City of Oklahoma City, 666 P.2d 786, 789 (Okla. Ct. App. 1983). In Gleason, the Court of Appeals recognized that the terms "claimant" and "claim" were not defined by the Tort Claims Act, 51 O.S.Supp. 1978 § 151 et seq. It held that a widow filing on the same basis as the wife here - individually, as administratrix, and as guardian of her two minor children - was entitled to multiple recoveries against a political subdivision. Having ruled in favor of the wife, the trial judge certified for interlocutory appeal, pursuant to 12 O.S. 1991 § 952 (b)(3), the aggregation issue. The petition for certiorari was granted on October 27, 1992, setting a briefing cycle and ordering the parties to address our decision in Oglesby v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 832 P.2d 834, 841 (Okla. 1992). The briefing cycle was completed on November 25, 1992.
THE EXPRESS LANGUAGE OF 51 O.S.SUPP. 1992 § 152(4)(C) REQUIRES WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIMS AGAINST A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION TO BE AGGREGATED.
The City asserts that the definition of claimant found in 51 O.S.Supp. 1992 § 152 (4)(c) and our pronouncement in Oglesby v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 832 P.2d 834, 841 (Okla. 1992) require the aggregation of the wife's individual claim with those tendered as a representative of the estate and on behalf of her child. Initially, Carlson opposed aggregation of the three claims on the basis of the Court of Appeals opinion in Gleason v. City of Oklahoma City, 666 P.2d 786, 789 (Okla. Ct. App. 1983). However, in response to the order to brief the aggregation issue, Carlson acknowledged that Oglesby is dispositive of the aggregation issue presented here. We address the issue of aggregated claims under the Governmental Tort Claims Act to correct any confusion concerning amendment of the Act subsequent to the Gleason decision.
In Gleason, the Court of Appeals addressed the identical issue presented here - aggregation of wrongful death claims brought against a political subdivision. The appellate court noted that the terms "c
Page 1 2 3 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|