LEGAL BLOG
The lawyer’s at Ash Law were recently successful before the Oklahoma Supreme Court. In a suit against a local church the church argued they cannot be held liable for injuries sustained by a party who injures another while slain in the spirit. Ash Law argued this practice is not protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed and ruled in favor of our client! You can read the brief written by Jacob Biby of Ash Law below. This is just another example of our successes in the Courts of Oklahoma. To speak with a lawyer from Ash Law call us today at 918-599-0001 or contact us via the free case review option on our website.
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, Carol Williams was injured when upon becoming slain in the spirit Defendant, Jacob Alexander fell into Ms. Williams, knocked her to the ground and caused injuries thereto. As shown below, Defendant Alexander’s actions at a maximum qualify as “religious conduct” and not “religious belief.” Therefore, the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United State Constitution does not bar Ms. Williams claims in this case. In addition, Defendant Alexander was aware of his propensity to become unconscious when being slain in the spirit. As a result he had a duty to ensure his unconsciousness did not cause harm to innocent citizens. Because Alexander to no action to prevent himself from causing injury to Ms. Williams he breached his duty. Thus he is negligent and must answer for the harm caused.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. April 01, 2007, Ms. Carol Williams was attending Palm Sunday church services at the Thomas Community Church. (See Deposition of Carol Williams, page 13, lines 15-22.).
2. Ms. Williams was not a member of the church but was instead only visiting the church for its Palm Sunday service. (See Deposition of Carol Williams, page 14).
3. The Church invited anyone who was not saved, had back slidden or just needed to be prayed for to come to the altar. (See Deposition of Carol Williams, page 19, lines 4-7).
4. Acting upon the church’s invitation, Ms. Williams went to the front with the sole intention of being prayed for. Located directly in front of her was Defendant Jacob Alexander. (See Deposition of Carol Williams Page 22, lines 19-21; See Deposition of Jacob Alexander page 21, lines 11-12).
5. While Ms. William’s head was bowed in prayer, Defendant Alexander was slain in the spirit, fell onto Ms. Williams and knocked her to the ground. (See Deposition of Carol Williams Page 23, lines 2-18: See Deposition of Jacob Alexander page 14, lines 11-13).
6. Defendant Alexander has admitted going unconscious before and states that when he has he does not recall anything and does not know what’s going on. (See Deposition of Jacob Alexander Page 24, lines 15-18 & Page 28 10-12).
6. Defendant Alexander, a former member of Thomas Community Church does not recall any church belief, faith or doctrine which supports being slain in the spirit. Furthermore, he does not recall a belief, faith or doctrine which prohibits the use of catchers for those slain in the spirit. (See Deposition of Jacob Alexander page 32 lines 3
7. This was not the first time the Thomas Community Church provided this service to members and invitees. However the church gave no instruction on where people should stand. (See Deposition of Carol Williams page 30, lines 24-25 and page 31, lines 1-3).
8. In contrast to the activities Thomas Community Church, Defendant Alexander has testified that he has seen people slain in the spirit at other churches and nets or trained catchers are provided for each and every person who might be slain in the spirit. (See Depo of Jacob Alexander page 21).
9. Defendant Alexander found it “odd” that Thomas Community Church had no catchers. (See Depo of Jacob Alexander page 22, lines 2-6).
10. Thomas Community Church was negligent in failing to provide catchers, failing to warn invitees of dangers which defendant’s had knowledge of and failing to space or stagger individuals. (See Depo of Carol Williams page 44, lines 12-23).
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
As the court is aware, a motion for summary judgment should be granted only in exceptional circumstances. Specifically, summary judgment must only be granted when it has clearly been established that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact and therefore the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Bowers v. Wimberly, 1997, OK 24, 933 P.2d 312. The Court cannot grant summary judgment where reasonable minds could draw different inferences or conclusions from the facts. Phelps v. Hotel Management, Inc., 1996 OK 114, 925 P.2d 891.
IV. DISCUSSION
DEFENDANT ALEXANDER’S ACTIVITIES WERE “CONDUCT” AND NOT “BELIEF” AND AS SUCH THE DEFENDANT’S “CONDUCT” WAS NOT PROTECTED BY THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATE CONSTITUTION
Defendant argues that the court’s interference in this case “in effect, would dictate what his belief in God should be” and that being slain in the spirit is a matter of belief which is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. However, Defendant has failed to show one bit of evidence tending to prove his negligence was anything other than religious conduct which is dangerous to society and therefore not protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
The United States Supreme Court has held that not all activity undertaken in the name of religion is made immune from tort liability by the Free Exercise Clause of The First Amendment. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 US 296 (1940). In Cantwell, the Court held that the exercise of religion under the Free Exercise Clause falls into two categories, religious belief and religious conduct. Id. The exercise of religious belief serves as a complete bar to any tort proceeding. However, religious conduct is not immune from tort liability. Turner v. Unification Church, 473 F. Supp. 367 (1978). Specifically, a Defendant should be made to answer for his religious conduct when the conduct of the Defendant must be regulated to ensure the protection of society. Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn., 762 P.2d 46 (1988).
In the present case, the Defendant claims that his negligent act of falling into Ms. Williams was based in his religious belief and should not be considered religious conduct.
However, the Defendant has failed to present one bit of evidence supporting his position that the act of falling into Ms. Williams was based in religious belief. Specifically, the Defendant has failed to show the Court why his negligent act should be considered religious. Even If the Court should find that the Defendant’s negligence is based in religion, the Defendant does not show any evidence tending to prove that his falling into Ms. Williams is anything other than conduct unprotected by the United States Constitution. Notably, the Defendant has not directed the Court to one decision supporting his proposition that this is anything other than religious conduct. In addition, every case cited above supports the proposition that the Defendant’s actions in this case are not immune from suit.
DEFENDANT KNEW OF HIS PROPENSITY TO BECOME UNCONSCIOUS AND THEREFORE OWED A DUTY TO ENSURE HIS UNCONSCIOUSNESS WOULD NOT CAUSE INJURY TO HIS FELLOW CITIZENS AND HIS FAILURE TO TAKE PRECAUTION WAS THE CAUSE OF MS. WILLIAM’S INJURIES
Defendant’s second argument is that implicit within Ms. William’s action is the accusation that Defendant Alexander owed a duty to provide catchers for those being slain in the spirit. Because Defendant Alexander was an invitee he argues he owed no such duty. The Defendant misunderstands Plaintiff’s position and as shown below Defendant owed a duty to Ms. Williams and as such his Motion for Summary Judgment must be denied.
It is a long held principle of tort law that when a Defendant knows he is susceptible to seizures or unconsciousness and he persists in activity which is likely to enduce his weakness and injure the general public the Defendant is negligent.
In the present case, the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and deposition testimony explain exactly why he owed a duty to Ms. Williams. As Defendant said, “he has been slain in the holy spirit before, and that of the times he has experienced being slain, he states he has lost consciousness about twenty-five (25%) percent of the time.” The Defendant also says, “[y]ou really do not know what is going on.”
Defendant knew of his propensity to lose consciousness and therefore owed a duty to take reasonable measures to ensure that his becoming unconscious would not cause injury to an innocent person. However, Defendant failed to take one precaution to prevent an injury to those people situated around him. As a result, he caused Ms. Williams injuries and should be held liable.
Wherefore, premises considered, Plaintiff Carol Williams requests the Court overrule Defendant Jacob Alexander’s Motion for Summary judgment thus, allowing this claim to proceed to trial.
Respectfully Submitted,