 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Groseclose v. City of Tulsa11/10/1998
GROSECLOSE v. CITY OF TULSA
___ P.2d ___
1998 OK 112
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS DIVISION I
The trial Judge, the Honorable Sharron K. Bubenik, District Judge of Tulsa county, granted defendant Steve Slaughter's application for indemnification of attorney fees pursuant to 51 O.S. Supp. 1992 § 162. The Court of Civil Appeals, Division I, affirmed. We previously granted certiorari and now vacate the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals and affirm the trial court.
CERTIORARI GRANTED PREVIOUSLY;
THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS IS VACATED;
TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED.
The issue is whether the trial court erred in awarding Defendant/Appellee Steve Slaughter indemnification from the City of Tulsa for attorney fees and costs expended in defending an action in which it was alleged that he committed assault and battery on the plaintiff while acting within the scope of his employment as a Tulsa police officer. We find that the trial court did not err in allowing indemnification.
Defendant Slaughter was off duty and had just attended church services when he confronted Plaintiff Groseclose and two associates while they were removing items from a warehouse leased by a church ministry. Plaintiff refused to identify himself or reveal his authority for being on the premises. Slaughter left to call the Tulsa police but, before they arrived, Slaughter and Plaintiff had a physical altercation. Groseclose sued the City of Tulsa and the two church entities. Plaintiff filed an amended petition adding Slaughter as a defendant and later dismissed the churches with prejudice. Plaintiff sued the City of Tulsa (City) for negligence based on Slaughter's actions and sued Slaughter for assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff alleged that Slaughter was acting within the scope of his employment when the acts were committed.
Slaughter filed a written request for legal representation from the City of Tulsa pursuant to 11 O.S.§ 23-101, but City denied the request. Slaughter then hired his own counsel. After jury trial, the jury returned verdicts in favor of the City of Tulsa and Steve Slaughter and the trial court entered judgment for City and Slaughter. Slaughter then filed an application in the trial court seeking indemnification of his attorney fees and costs from City under the Governmental Tort Claims Act, 51 O.S. Supp. 1992 § 162.
After a hearing, the trial Judge found that Slaughter was entitled to indemnification for attorney fees and costs expended in his defense, pursuant to 51 O.S. § 162 and ordered the City to indemnify Slaughter for his attorney fees in the amount of $5,080.25 and costs in the amount of $1,094.05. The City filed a motion to reconsider and the trial court denied the motion. The City of Tulsa appealed the order allowing indemnification and the Court of Civil Appeals, Division I, affirmed. We granted certiorari.
City's brief on appeal alleges that the requirements of 51 O.S. § 162(B) were not met in that: 1) Slaughter did not produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that he was entitled to indemnification under 51 O.S. § 162(B)(4) and, 2) the trial court should have conducted a full evidentiary hearing before granting the application for indemnification under § 162 (B)(2).
Defendant Slaughter asserted that he was not required to comply with § 162(B) because he was entitled to indemnification as a matter of law under Title 51 O.S. §162(A)(1) because the plaintiff had alleged that Slaughter was acting within the scope of his e
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Oklahoma Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|