 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lee v. Bates12/13/2005
ut which the Duncans complain took place in Cleveland or Oklahoma County. COCA also rejected any notion that the place where consequences are felt or damages occur may provide a basis for laying venue under §134.
The Duncans urge COCA's analysis, in its effect, ignores the §134 language that permits venue to lie against a corporate defendant "in the county where the cause of action or any part thereof arose" (emphasis ours). According to the Duncans the legislature intended to include within a plaintiff's permissive venue choices all counties where any element of a cause of action arose. This is clear from the inclusion in the legislative text of the phrase "or any part thereof." They assert COCA's ruling, as it impacts false representation, assumes that a cause of action must be deemed complete "where and when" the false publication is uttered. It, in essence, gives life to a fraud action before any communication to the aggrieved party occurs. An allegation of false representation, according to the Duncans, is actionable only after it is communicated to and relied upon by the recipient and after the recipient incurs damages as a result of reliance on the misrepresentation. Because the Duncans heard the information while in Canadian County, they contend venue is proper there. Postic & Bates urge COCA's opinion is consistent with Oklahoma's venue jurisprudence.
IV. A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FALSE REPRESENTATION AGAINST A DOMESTIC CORPORATION WILL LIE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF § 134 IN THE COUNTY WHERE THE ALLEGEDLY FALSE UTTERANCE WAS HEARD
The question of where a cause of action for inducing one to enter into a contract by false representation will lie against a domestic corporation under the provisions of §134 is one of first impression. Whether venue of this action could have been laid in Cleveland or Oklahoma County is not before us. Of sole concern is whether venue was properly laid in Canadian County. Our resolution of this dispositive question requires an answer to the query whether "any part" of the Duncans' cause of action for false representation may be deemed to have arisen in Canadian County.
The Duncans' claim for damages from a breach of contract by false representation has a tortious element. False communication is transient in nature. To establish liability in this cause the Duncans must prove all elements of their cause of action. They urge the following two indispensable elements - 1) their reliance upon the alleged false representation made to them by Bates and 2) the injury they incurred because of this reliance - both occurred in Canadian County. The critical question to be answered is hence where the parties are not in the same location, is the element of false representation complete by proof of its utterance or by proof of its utterance and receipt by the hearer. If the former is true, venue would lie in the county where the communicant uttered the statements. If the latter is correct, venue is proper in the county where the utterance is heard by its recipient.
The legal term of art "cause of action" is historically multi-faceted. Over time it has come to denote legal harm for which one is entitled to redress in a judicial proceeding. To be part of a cause of action, the act relied on for laying venue must be one of the facts which, by the substantive law of the state, comprises the cause of action. COCA's analysis of where the cause of action arose - as well as that made at nisi prius - focuses on the "locus of legal services" provided. COCA noted that all legal services performed by Bates occurred in Cleveland or Oklahoma County. The Duncans are not seeking to recover for legal services but rather are suing for misrepresentati
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.
|
|