Opinion ID: 1121536
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: church liability generally under the free exercise clause

Text: The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment may shield a church from tort liability on a parishioner's suit when the church's act occurs in the context of the church's ecclesiastical jurisdiction. [2] In Guinn v. Church of Christ of Collinsville, 775 P.2d 766 (Okl. 1989) we explained that the plaintiff's recovery on the basis of the torts of outrage and invasion of privacy could not be sustained in a civil court when the acts alleged to be tortious were the ecclesiastical disciplinary acts of a church against its member. We followed this rule in Hadnot v. Shaw, 826 P.2d 978 (Okl. 1992). The First Amendment does not shield a religious institution from all tort liability. Tort liability for a church may arise from acts unrelated to religious practices protected by the First Amendment. For example, where the degree of care a church uses in maintaining property is unrelated to its religious beliefs and practices, and a person is damaged as a result of the church's maintenance of the property, a tort action may proceed. [3] Some jurisdictions have determined that a church may likewise be liable under some circumstances for the intentional torts of its employees. [4] Similarly, tort liability may be imposed upon the Elders of a church for tortious acts beyond the constitutionally protected religious practices of a church. [5] The parties, of course, agree that the affair had nothing to do with the doctrine of the church. Although there is a dispute between the church and the minister as to whether marital counseling is one of the duties of a minister, there is no doubt that the minister as well as the plaintiffs considered marital counseling as one of the duties of the minister. The husband's claims against the church are based upon theories that the church negligently supervised the minister, and is liable for the acts of its employee pursuant to respondeat superior. [6] Because the claims against the church are intertwined with, and partially dependent upon, those against the minister, we must examine the claims against the minister.