441 P.3d 1094
Okla.2019Background
- On Oct. 29, 2017 Jake Watkins, driving under the influence, rear‑ended and damaged a vehicle driven by Lee McIntosh; McIntosh and another occupant sustained injuries. Watkins fled before providing the information required by 47 O.S. § 10-104.
- Watkins pleaded no contest in criminal charges (DUI and leaving the scene) under § 10-103 and received a deferred judgment.
- McIntosh settled bodily‑injury claims for $25,000 and received repairs/diminution payments for his vehicle; the remaining dispute was whether he could recover treble damages under 47 O.S. § 10-103 for vehicle damage.
- Watkins moved for summary judgment arguing § 10-103 (which authorizes treble damages) applies only to accidents "resulting only in damage to a vehicle," so it does not apply where there is also bodily injury.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Watkins; McIntosh appealed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed the statutory construction de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether treble damages under 47 O.S. § 10-103 are available when an accident involved both vehicle damage and bodily injury | McIntosh: § 10-103's treble‑damages clause applies when a driver violates § 10-104 after damaging an attended vehicle; the word "only" limits the criminal degree, not civil recovery, so treble damages apply even if there are injuries | Watkins: § 10-103 governs accidents "resulting only in damage to a vehicle," so it does not apply where there are bodily injuries; nonfatal‑injury provisions (§ 10-102) lack treble damages | Court: § 10-103 treble damages apply to civil recovery for damage to an attended vehicle when the driver fails to comply with § 10-104, even if the victim sustained injury; reversed and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Nelson v. Enid Med. Assocs., Inc., 376 P.3d 212 (Okla. 2016) (standard of review for summary judgment is de novo)
- Carmichael v. Beller, 914 P.2d 1051 (Okla. 1996) (summary judgment requires absence of genuine issues of material fact)
- Hall v. Galmor, 427 P.3d 1052 (Okla. 2018) (statutory interpretation begins with text; in absence of ambiguity, apply plain meaning)
- Palmer v. State, 327 P.2d 722 (Okla. Crim. App. 1958) (discussing separate offenses under model hit‑and‑run statutes and distinguishing misdemeanor/felony provisions)