GOWENS v. BARSTOW
2015 OK 85
| Okla. | 2015Background
- On July 3, 2007, NRH paramedic supervisor Ethan Barstow, responding to an emergency with lights/siren, struck Elizabeth Gowens at a complex, partially grade-separated intersection in Norman, OK; Gowens was injured.
- Barstow admitted speeding (claimed 60–70 mph in a 50 mph zone); trial judge found he likely had lights/siren on but that his speed through the intersection was both negligent and reckless.
- Trial court found Barstow acted within the scope of employment, awarded Gowens ~$263,682 (reduced for comparative fault and capped at the GTCA $125,000 cap).
- NRH appealed, arguing (1) under GTCA precedent an employer is immune from respondeat superior liability for emergency drivers unless acts rise to malice/bad faith, and (2) insufficient evidence supported a finding of reckless disregard.
- The Court of Civil Appeals reversed on scope/immunity grounds; the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated COCA, affirmed the trial court, and clarified GTCA scope for reckless conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GTCA permits respondeat superior liability for reckless acts of emergency vehicle drivers | Gowens: Reckless acts do not automatically remove employer from scope; employer may be liable where employee acted within scope despite recklessness | NRH: Fehring+Gurich combine to render GTCA employers immune from negligent/reckless acts of emergency drivers; reckless acts lie outside scope | Court: Employers may be liable; Fehring’s automatic exclusion of good faith for reckless acts overruled in part — reckless disregard does not automatically equal bad faith or place act outside scope when conduct is incident to duties |
| Proper standard of care for emergency vehicle drivers under 47 O.S. §11-106 | Gowens: Gurich establishes "reckless disregard" as the operative standard (higher than negligence) and trial court found that standard met | NRH: Even if reckless standard applies, evidence insufficient to prove reckless disregard or causal role of speed | Court: Gurich stands; record contained competent evidence to support trial court finding of reckless disregard based on speed and intersection conditions |
| Whether Barstow acted within scope of employment despite reckless conduct | Gowens: Responding to emergency with lights/siren, speeding was incident to duties; not evidence of malice or usurpation of authority | NRH: Reckless acts are outside scope (per Fehring) so employer immune | Court: Barstow acted within scope; speeding—even if reckless—was incident to employment and did not demonstrate malice/bad faith here |
| Procedural/waiver issues (judicial-bias claim; apportionment; damages credits) | Gowens: No timely objection to alleged judicial bias; Medicaid write-offs not shown to reduce GTCA cap; no evidence to apportion fault to City | NRH: Judge’s comments showed bias (entitled to new trial); Medicaid write-offs should reduce judgment; City may share fault | Court: Bias claim waived for lack of timely trial objection; trial court did not err in apportionment; per Thomas plaintiff recovers percentage of total damages up to GTCA cap, so no reduction to cap from NRH for write-offs |
Key Cases Cited
- Fehring v. State Ins. Fund, 19 P.3d 276 (Okla. 2001) (discussed; Court narrows/overrules part holding that reckless acts automatically lack good faith and are always outside scope)
- State ex rel. Okla. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Gurich, 238 P.3d 1 (Okla. 2010) (establishes "reckless disregard" as the standard of care for emergency vehicle drivers under §11-106)
- Thomas v. City of Tulsa, 766 P.2d 339 (Okla. 1988) (holding plaintiff entitled to percentage of total damages up to GTCA cap — court applies this rule to damages calculation)
- Nail v. City of Henryetta, 911 P.2d 914 (Okla. 1996) (scope-of-employment/respondeat superior framework)
- Tuffy’s, Inc. v. City of Oklahoma City, 212 P.3d 1158 (Okla. 2009) (GTCA is exclusive remedy; respondeat superior applicable under GTCA)