Opinion ID: 2512400
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the trial court abused its discretion in striking the injured party's claim for punitive damages.

Text: ¶ 16 In motion argument before the second trial, the employer requested that the trial court strike the injured party's claim for punitive damages. The employer argued that it did not condone, adopt, or endorse the employee's actions, and was therefore not liable for punitive damages under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The injured party responded that the employer was liable for punitive damages through respondeat superior and that the issue should be submitted to the jury. The trial court struck the injured party's claim and held: . . . In looking at the factual basis and understanding that the Court has found that Ms. Konelick was acting in the scope of her employment, I cannot make the next leap that I necessarily have to find that Aramark is liable for punitive damages . . . I cannot find that there could be found by a jury any willful conduct on the part of the corporation itself, even though it is the employer of the defendant that has already been found to have punitive damages . . . I know there's employer liability because (sic) respondeat superior, but not for punitive damages. . . . [19] ¶ 17 All relevant evidence is admissible. [20] Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, needless presentation of cumulative evidence, or unfair and harmful surprise. [21] The trial court has broad discretion in determining if the probative value of relevant evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, and a reviewing court will not overturn the trial court's ruling unless there is clear abuse of discretion. [22] Error may not be predicated on a ruling that excludes evidence unless a substantial right of a party is affected and the substance of the evidence was made known to the trial court by offer. [23] A court necessarily abuses its discretion if it bases its ruling on an erroneous view of the law. [24] ¶ 18 The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 909 provides that punitive damages may be awarded against an employer because of an employee's conduct only if: 1) the employer authorized the doing and manner of the act; 2) the employer was reckless in employing an unfit employee; 3) the employee was employed in a managerial capacity and acting in the scope of employment; or 4) the employer ratified or approved the act. [25] Florida law requires willful and wanton conduct by the employee and some fault on the part of the employer in order to subject an employer to vicarious liability for punitive damages. [26] The trial court appears to have found one or both of these standards to be controlling, but neither Restatement (Second) of Torts § 909 nor the Florida standard has been adopted in Oklahoma. [27] ¶ 19 We would have to overrule a myriad of cases to reach the result urged by the employer. [28] Under Oklahoma law, an employer may be held vicariously liable for the punitive damages arising out of an employee's act if: 1) a master/servant relationship exists between the employer and employee; and 2) the act was committed while the employee was acting within the scope of employment. [29] Punitive or exemplary damages may be assessed against an employer for an employee's act under the doctrine of respondeat superior. [30] There is no requirement that an employer participate in or ratify the conduct of an employee to be liable for punitive or exemplary damages under the doctrine of respondeat superior. [31] ¶ 20 Here, it had already been established that the employee was liable for punitive damages and that the doctrine of respondeat superior was applicable to the employer. [32] The trial court struck the injured party's claim based on an erroneous view of Oklahoma law on liability for punitive damages through respondeat superior. The trial court's ruling prevented the injured party from seeking punitive damages, affecting a substantial right. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by striking the claim, and the injured party's claim for punitive damages should have been presented to the jury.