Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO OKLAHOMA UNIFORM JURY INSTRUCTIONS - CIVIL
Citations: 2016 OK 90; 2016 Okla. LEXIS 90
Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma; September 12, 2016; Oklahoma; State Supreme Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The Supreme Court of Oklahoma has adopted amendments and new instructions to the Oklahoma Uniform Civil Jury Instructions (OUJI-CIV), as recommended by the Oklahoma Supreme Court Committee for Uniform Civil Jury Instructions. The approved amendments include updates to existing instructions and the addition of new instructions, specifically identified as OUJI-CIV Nos. 1.0, 1.4, 3.11, 3.25, 4.1-4.3, 10.13, 11.10, 25.1-25.7, and the newly created instructions 25.11, 25.12, 31.1-31.4, and 32.1-32.4. These instructions will be accessible online via the court's website, and the Administrative Office of the Courts is tasked with notifying district judges of this approval. District courts must implement these instructions within 30 days, although they may do so immediately for pending cases. The Court retains authority to review the legal correctness of these instructions and to provide corrective relief as necessary. The amendments will take effect 30 days after the order's entry. Specific instructions, such as the prohibition of electronic devices during trials, are emphasized to ensure jury impartiality and adherence to the court's orders, with violations potentially resulting in severe consequences for jurors. The court outlines the responsibilities of the jury regarding the law and evidence in the case. Jurors must accept and follow all provided instructions as a complete set and determine the facts solely based on evidence presented during court sessions. They should not be influenced by sympathy or prejudice, and their verdict must be grounded in probabilities rather than speculation. Evidence includes witness testimony, admitted exhibits, agreed-upon facts, and facts instructed by the court. Jurors can draw reasonable inferences from the evidence and apply their common knowledge to reach conclusions. Rules govern the admissibility of evidence, and jurors must disregard any evidence covered by upheld objections. Attorneys' objections and the judge's rulings on them are not to be considered as evidence. Statements made by attorneys are meant to aid understanding but are not evidence themselves. Jurors are responsible for assessing the credibility of witnesses, considering their knowledge, memory, and potential biases. The judge's comments during the trial are not indicative of their opinion on the facts. Jurors must refrain from discussing the case with anyone, including family and friends, and must report any attempts to communicate about the case. They should not discuss the case with fellow jurors or form opinions until it is officially submitted for deliberation. Jurors are prohibited from accessing any external information regarding the trial, including newspaper articles, internet sources, and broadcast media, as well as from visiting the scene or conducting personal investigations. They must refrain from discussing the case, including during recesses, and should report any violations of these instructions to the judge or bailiff. The intent of these rules is to maintain an unbiased mindset, relying solely on courtroom evidence. Additionally, no instruction should be given regarding an inference from a party's failure to produce evidence, although adverse inferences may be warranted in cases of evidence spoliation. The court supports imposing severe sanctions for the destruction of evidence, even absent a discovery order. Direct evidence is defined as personal knowledge or eyewitness testimony, while circumstantial evidence consists of facts that lead to reasonable inferences about other facts. Both types of evidence are to be weighted equally in deliberations. If the jury finds in favor of the plaintiff, they are responsible for determining a fair compensation amount for the injuries incurred due to the defendant's negligence or wrongful conduct. In determining the damages to award the plaintiff, the following elements should be considered: 1. Physical pain and suffering, both past and future. 2. Mental pain and suffering, both past and future. 3. Age of the plaintiff. 4. Physical condition before and after the accident. 5. Nature and extent of the injuries. 6. Whether the injuries are permanent. 7. Physical impairment. 8. Disfigurement. 9. Loss of earnings or time. 10. Impairment of earning capacity. 11. Reasonable expenses for necessary medical care and treatment, both past and future. Any elements not supported by evidence should be excluded, while including any legally permissible elements that are supported by evidence but not listed. The term 'wrongful conduct' should be replaced with a more appropriate term, such as 'intentional misconduct.' If parents are joining the minor plaintiff to recover their damages, additional instructions regarding the measure of the parent's or guardian's damages should be provided. The overarching goal is to ensure that the damages awarded reasonably and fairly compensate the plaintiff for injuries sustained due to the defendant's negligence or wrongful conduct. Factors to consider when determining damages for a minor child's wrongful death include: A. Reasonable medical expenses incurred or expected until the child turns eighteen. B. Loss of past earnings of the child. C. Future loss of earnings or impairment of earning capacity until age eighteen. D. Loss of past household services the child would have provided to the parent or guardian. E. Future loss of such services until the child reaches eighteen. Items not supported by evidence should be excluded, while any legally permissible items supported by evidence, even if not listed, should be included. The term "wrongful conduct" should be replaced with "intentional misconduct". Regarding a passenger's duty of care, a passenger must exercise ordinary care for their own safety, which may include warning the driver of dangerous conditions. This instruction applies only if evidence supports the passenger's responsibility to caution the driver. For invitee safety, owners or occupants have a duty to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition. They must either remove or warn invitees of hidden dangers known or should be known through reasonable care, including dangers created by themselves or their employees. This duty applies to all areas of the premises where invitees may reasonably go. The instruction can be tailored to specific cases, such as slip-and-fall incidents. Cases involving invitees may necessitate modifications to general jury instructions when issues arise, such as whether the invitee exceeded the scope of their invitation or overstayed their welcome. Additionally, if a hidden danger emerges due to an intervening action by another party that the defendant should have anticipated, adjustments to the standard instructions may also be required. An illustrative case is Lingerfelt v. Winn-Dixie Texas, Inc., where the Oklahoma Supreme Court found a grocery store potentially liable for a hidden danger created by other customers that the store should have foreseen. The court reversed a defense verdict due to the denial of a jury instruction concerning the dangerous condition related to the store's product display methods. Self-service merchandising creates risks associated with dropped or spilled merchandise, and courts acknowledge that these methods inherently lead to hazardous conditions. The duty of a storekeeper to invitees requires them to maintain safe premises and warn customers of known or foreseeable dangers. Knowledge of dangerous conditions can be ascribed to the storekeeper if they were aware of them, if the conditions had existed long enough for the storekeeper to have known, or if the conditions were created by the store or its employees. The document also outlines instructions related to the Condemnation and Surface Damages Act, defining eminent domain as a legal process through which a government entity acquires private property for public use, provided that just compensation is given. Under Oklahoma law, property may be taken for public use with compensation to the owner, who must not consider the necessity or propriety of the taking during deliberations. The concept of "just compensation" is clarified as the fair market value of the property at the time it is taken. The property subject to condemnation includes both land and any structures attached to it. The provided instructions apply specifically when an entire property is condemned, ensuring clarity in valuation without complications from remaining property. They should accompany Instruction No. 25.5, which defines fair market value. The 1990 amendment to Oklahoma's Constitution defines "just compensation" as the value of the property taken, shifting from the prior standard of fair market value. In partial taking cases, "just compensation" refers to the payment to the property owner for the value of the portion taken, as well as any damage to the remaining property. Compensation includes the fair market value of the taken property and any injury to what remains, considering factors such as separation, loss of access, and impacts from construction. Any increase in value of the remaining property due to project features can be subtracted from the injury value, but this increase cannot offset the value of the taken property. The instructions emphasize that in partial takings, compensation must also reflect any injurious impacts to the remaining property, with a clear delineation of the property taken and what remains. The amendment and subsequent legislative updates reinforce that just compensation encompasses both the value of the taken property and any injury to the remaining property, with benefits offsetting only injuries, not the value of the taken portion. Just compensation in partial takings is determined by the difference in fair market values before and after the taking. The last sentence of the newly added paragraphs may conflict with earlier statements and the 1990 amendment to Oklahoma Constitution Article 2, Section 24; therefore, it is excluded from the Instruction. The Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld the Instruction as a correct interpretation of the law in *Williams Natural Gas Co. v. Perkins*, despite inconsistencies with Oklahoma Statutes. The instruction pertains to the condemnation of an easement, defined as a right to control another's property for specific purposes. The easement's duration is specified, and the property owner will not retain any use or control inconsistent with the easement. "Just compensation" for the easement includes the fair market value of the easement plus any damage to the remaining property, which encompasses land and attachments. An increase in value to the remaining property due to the easement can be subtracted from any injury but cannot exceed the damage sustained. The Instruction is to be used in easement acquisition cases alongside Instruction No. 25.5, which defines fair market value as the amount a willing buyer would pay a willing seller, based on the property's highest and best use. This ensures that just compensation is aligned with fair market value. The Instruction on fair market value should be given if there’s a risk that the jury might not consider the property's highest and best use, following standards established by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in *City of Tulsa v. Creekmore*, which emphasizes evaluating all potential uses of the property. In Oklahoma Turnpike Auth. v. Daniel, the Oklahoma Supreme Court established a "before and after" method for calculating damages in property condemnation cases. This method assesses the difference in fair market value of the entire property before the taking and the remaining property after the taking. Appraisers commonly use this approach in condemnation proceedings. Evidence of comparable sales can be utilized to determine fair market value, with factors such as distance, neighborhood similarity, zoning restrictions, property size and condition, timing of the sale, sale terms, and whether the sale was voluntary being crucial for evaluation. Adjustments must be made for differences between properties. Jurors are instructed to award a single sum for damages, rather than separate amounts for each property portion or damage item, especially when multiple owners are involved. Property owners are entitled to compensation for damages resulting from oil and gas operations on their land, as outlined in the Oklahoma Surface Damages Act, which balances the interests of mineral interest holders and surface owners. This Act modifies previous common law by allowing compensation for damages not just in cases of negligence or excessive operational impact. Damages under the Oklahoma Surface Damages Act do not prevent surface owners from seeking additional damages from operators at a later date. The measure of damages is determined by the change in fair market value of the property due to drilling and maintenance operations, which includes factors such as the location of operations, quality of disturbed property, incidental effects on property use, inconvenience suffered by the owner, the nature of damages (temporary or permanent), physical changes to the property, access issues, destruction of crops, and restoration costs. These factors should be considered collectively to assess fair market value rather than as separate damages. Compensation awarded is a single sum reflecting total damages incurred. The Oklahoma Supreme Court views the Surface Damages Act as akin to a condemnation action, emphasizing that the intended damage standard is the diminution of fair market value due to oil and gas operations. Relevant case law supports the factors listed for determining damages, affirming the inclusion of both common law and statutory measures for compensation related to surface damage from oil and gas activities. The Supreme Court established that damages for permanent injuries to land are determined by the difference in reasonable market value before and after the injury, emphasizing that jury instructions must prohibit double recovery for the same injury. Under the Surface Damages Act, the measure of damages is the reduction in value of surface property due to drilling operations, although the Court did not clarify entitlement to damages for temporary injuries like loss of use or restoration costs. However, factors such as "inconvenience suffered in actual use of the land" were included for jury consideration in a prior case. The cost of restoring the property was added to the jury instructions as a factor impacting the valuation of damages. The inclusion of temporary damages was noted, but a separate instruction for temporary and permanent injuries was deemed unnecessary. In cases where drilling operations enhance some property values while diminishing others, the benefits should not offset the injuries. The excerpt also transitions to discussing contempt of court, defining it as willfully disobeying a lawful court order, and differentiating between direct and indirect contempt, the former being punishable on the spot. The court has the authority to impose punishments for direct contempt based on its own findings, without the right to a jury trial, as established in Hogg v. State. This power is justified by the need to maintain order in the courtroom. For both direct and indirect contempt, judges determine the punishment, which is limited to a fine of up to $500 or imprisonment for up to six months, unless stated otherwise by law. Indirect contempt involves willful disobedience of lawful court orders and allows for a jury trial, as outlined in Oklahoma law. Individuals accused of indirect contempt must receive written notice of the charges and have a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves, including the right to a jury trial upon request. The term "willfully" is defined as acting with knowledge and intention, not accidentally. In contempt cases, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, who must demonstrate the defendant's willful disobedience by clear and convincing evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt, depending on the nature of the contempt sanction—remedial or penal. The purpose of indirect contempt sanctions can be either to compel compliance or to penalize the noncompliance, as noted in relevant case law. Punishment for indirect contempt can be categorized as either remedial or penal. Remedial sanctions aim to coerce compliance with a court order, allowing the defendant to terminate imprisonment through compliance or a promise to comply. In contrast, penal sanctions are punitive, involve a fixed period of incarceration, and are unaffected by compliance. The burden of proof differs: clear and convincing evidence is required for remedial sanctions, while penal sanctions require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Courts should not define "reasonable doubt" for jurors, as established in prior cases. Instructions for jurors indicate that a less than unanimous verdict is permissible for petty offenses punishable by up to six months of imprisonment. In civil forfeiture cases, the State of Oklahoma can seek to seize property alleged to be connected to unlawful use, independent of any criminal charges or outcomes against individuals. The action is civil, focusing on the property rather than the owner’s conduct, aiming to deter unlawful use and remove such property from circulation. The legal basis for civil forfeiture is found in 63 O.S. Supp. 2015. Statutory provisions for civil forfeiture in Oklahoma include 21 O.S. 2011. 1738 and 21 O.S. Supp. 2015. 2002. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals determined in *State ex rel. Dugger v. 12,000* that individuals have a right to a jury trial in forfeiture cases involving property valued over $1,500 that is not contraband. For property to be subject to civil forfeiture, the State must demonstrate, by the preponderance of evidence, that the property (1) is a vehicle involved in unlawful possession of controlled substances with intent to distribute, (2) is money or valuable items used to purchase controlled substances illegally, (3) is real property facilitating a controlled substance crime, or (4) is a weapon used in such crimes. Civil forfeiture is not permitted for simple misdemeanor possession and homesteads are exempt from forfeiture, as established in relevant case law. Presumptions in civil forfeiture law suggest that money found near controlled substances is presumed to be intended for their purchase, shifting the burden of proof to the defendant to establish otherwise. Additionally, a vehicle cannot be forfeited if the owner was unaware of or did not consent to the unlawful use involving controlled substances. These instructions are derived from relevant Oklahoma statutes and precedents, ensuring clarity on the conditions and defenses related to civil forfeiture. To establish a defense against civil forfeiture related to the unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, the vehicle owner must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that they had no knowledge of and did not consent to the unlawful possession. This principle applies to both personal property and real property, which cannot be subject to forfeiture if the owner is unaware of or did not consent to the violation of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act. The Oklahoma Supreme Court in *State ex rel. Harris v. 2011 Honda* affirmed that innocent owners should not lose their ownership rights due to the actions of a guilty party in vehicle forfeiture cases. Additionally, the court noted in *State ex rel. Wood v. Gold/Blue 1988 Chevrolet Blazer* that a statute requiring proof of unlawful possession alongside a lack of knowledge and consent for the innocent owner defense was unconstitutional.