Hill v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.

Filing 103

ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White granting in part and denying in part defendant J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.'s motion for partial summary judgment ( 64 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ) (lal, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MICHAEL HILL, as Special Administrator )
of the Estate of Jimmy Hill,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., and
)
O.K. FARMS, INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. CIV-13-429-RAW

ORDER
Before the court is the motion of the defendant J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. for partial
summary judgment. The facts have been set forth in a companion order ruling on the motion
for summary judgment of defendant O.K. Farms, Inc.
Movant does not seek summary judgment as to liability, leaving the disputed facts for
resolution by a jury. Instead, movant asks for judgment as to plaintiff’s request for punitive
damages. Perhaps surprisingly, the issue of whether it is generally appropriate under
Oklahoma law to grant summary judgment as to punitive damages is not perfectly clear.1
Plaintiff interprets Haberman v. The Hartford Ins. Grp., 443 F.3d 1257, 1271 (10th
Cir.2006) as standing for the proposition that “[t]he issue is always to be submitted to the
jury unless there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever supporting the claim.” (#68 at

1

The court in LeBlanc v. Travelers Home and Marine Ins. Co., 2011 WL 2748616 (W.D.Okla.2011)
granted a motion for summary judgment as to punitive damages, but arguably this is limited to insurance bad
faith claims. See Badillo v. Mid Century Ins. Co., 121 P.3d 1080, 1106 (Okla.2005)(“Even where there is
evidence to support recovery of actual damages in this type of case, submission of the issue of punitive
damages to a jury may be improper.”)(emphasis added).

11)(emphasis in original). This is not quite accurate, and plaintiff states the issue accurately
in later sentences. Rather, the court must review the summary judgment issue bearing in
mind the heightened evidentiary standard for a punitive damages claim under Oklahoma law.
Dutton v. Merit Energy Co., 2014 WL 2040615, *3 (W.D.Okla.2014). That heightened
standard is “clear and convincing evidence” under 23 O.S. §9.1. Thus, the issue must be
submitted to the jury unless there is “no evidence” sufficient under the heightened standard.2
The court in Dutton reviewed a similar motion and ultimately denied it, but in no way
indicated such a motion was inappropriate or would be denied as a matter of course. The
court concluded: “Due to the heightened burden of proof required, the Court entertains some
doubt as to whether the issue of punitive damages will ultimately remain for the jury.” Id.
at *5. This court entertains the same doubt, but (viewing the record in the light most
favorable to plaintiff) the motion will not be granted at this time.
In the alternative, defendant contends the Oklahoma punitive damages statute is
unconstitutional. Under the doctrine that constitutional questions should be avoided if
narrower grounds for decision exist, this aspect of the motion will also be denied at this time.
See Laney v. Schneider Nat. Carriers, Inc., 2011 WL 1667434, *3 (N.D.Okla.2011)(“Given
that the Court may grant a Rule 50 motion as to punitive damages after hearing evidence at
trial, a determination as to the constitutionality of Section 9.1 could very well be
unnecessary”).
2

See Estrada v. Port City Properties, Inc., 258 P.3d 495, 504 (Okla.2011)(Nothing in the current
statutory framework changes the trial court’s responsibility to determine whether any competent evidence
exists which would warrant submission of the question of punitive damages to the jury.)

2

Finally, movant seeks dismissal of any claim for negligent hiring, training or
supervision because movant stipulates that its employee Ford was acting within the scope of
his employment at the time. “Because the City stipulates that Noe was acting within the
scope of his employment, and that vicarious liability pursuant to the respondeat superior
doctrine is therefore applicable, the cause of action for negligent hiring, training, and
supervision is not available.”

Morris v. City of Sapulpa, 2011 WL 1627098

(N.D.Okla.2011)(citing Jordan v. Cates, 935 P.2d 289, 292 (Okla.1997)). In response,
plaintiff has conceded the point.
It is the order of the court that the motion for partial summary judgment (#64) is
hereby DENIED as to punitive damages and GRANTED as to any claim for negligent hiring,
training or supervision.
ORDERED THIS 22nd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014.

3