 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Carlson v. City of Broken Arrow12/15/1992
laimant" and "claim" were not defined in the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (Tort Claims Act), 51 O.S.Supp. 1978 § 151 et seq. Construing the act broadly, it held that political subdivisions were liable for multiple claims arising from a single wrongful death action. In Independent School Dist. 1-29 v. Crawford, 688 P.2d 1291, 1294 (Okla. 1984), this Court determined that the parents of an injured child and the child each were separate claimants entitled to the statutory maximum recovery under the Tort Claims Act. In doing so, we recognized Gleason and emphasized that the Tort Claims Act did not contain a definition for the word "claimant."
The Legislature amended § 152 in 1984 to include a definition of claimant in relation to a wrongful death action. The 1984 definition is identical to the current one and provides:
". . . 4. `Claimant' means the person or his authorized representative who files notice of a claim in accordance with this act. Only the following persons and no others may be claimants.. . . c. in the case of death, an administrator, special administrator or a personal representative who shall aggregate in his claim all losses of all persons which are derivative of the death . . ."
The determination of legislative intent controls statutory interpretation. However, it is unnecessary to apply rules of statutory construction if the legislative will is clearly expressed. The express language of § 152(4)(c), defining the term "claimant," requires aggregation of wrongful death claims brought against a political subdivision. This Court may not, through the use of statutory construction, change, modify or amend the expressed intent of the Legislature.
The finding that the clear language of 51 O.S.Supp. 1992 § 152 (4)(c) requires wrongful death claims against a political subdivision to be aggregated is supported by the Legislature's amendment of § 152 after the decisions in Gleason and in Crawford. Amendment of a statute once its meaning has been judicially determined indicates the legislative intent to alter the law. Here, the Legislature corrected an omission in the Governmental Tort Claims Act to include a definition of claimant that makes it clear that aggregation is required.
The requirement that claims be aggregated under the Governmental Tort Claims Act was foreshadowed by our pronouncement in Oglesby. There, we addressed the primary issue of aggregation of claims under the Oklahoma Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association Act (Oklahoma Guaranty Act), 36 O.S. 1991 2001 et seq. Based upon the plain language of 36 O.S.Supp. 1985 § 2007 , we found that parties whose claims arose from a single occurrence could recover the $150,000.00 statutory limitation under the Oklahoma Guaranty Act. In reaching the determination that each of the claimants in Oglesby might be entitled to the statutory maximum, we discussed recovery under the Governmental Tort Claims Act:
". . . The finding that each individual claimant may be entitled to recover under the Oklahoma Guaranty Act is supported by our prior jurisprudence. In Independent School Dist. I-29 v. Crawford, 688 P.2d 1291, 1294 (Okla. 1984), we determined that the parents of an injured child and the child each were separate claimants entitled to the statutory maximum recovery under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (Tort Claims Act), 51 O.S.Supp. 1979 § 151 , et seq. When Crawford was decided, the term "claimant" was not defined as a part of the Tort Claims Act. Under the Governmental Tort Claims Act, 51 O.S.Supp. 1985 § 151 , et seq., claimant is now defined to require that claims be aggregated. . . ." (Emphasis provided.)
Pursuant to the p
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.
|
|