PAR 203 Case Brief on State v Schallock
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Pima Community College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
203
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by UltraThunder9064
PAR 203 Case Brief on
State v. Schallock,
189 Ariz. 250, 941 P.2d 1275 (1997)
State v. Schallock
, 189 Ariz. 250, 941 P.2d 1275 (1997)
Parties:
State of Arizona – Plaintiff
Department of Administration -Plaintiff
Colleen Schallock, a single person – Defendant
Bertha A. Saunders, a married person – Defendant
Facts:
Colleen Schallock, a 23 year old law student, clerked at the Arizona
Prosecuting Attorney’s Advisory Council (APAAC) during the summer of
1988.
Bertha Saunders was a secretary at APAAC during the summer of 1988.
Allen Heinze was the executive director of APAAC during the summer of
1988.
Between June 1984 and 1990 Mrs. Saunders alleged that Mr. Heinze
engaged in multiple acts of sexual misconduct
o
including touching Mrs. Saunders’ crotch, butt, and breasts, running
his hands over her arms, shoulders, and the top of her chest,
attempting to force her to kiss him, and simulating sexual intercourse
with his pants unzipped and belt unfastened.
o
In June 1984, while attending a seminar, Mr. Heinze entered Mrs.
Saunders hotel room, made sexual comments, asked her to engage in
sexual intercourse, and then forced himself on Mrs. Saunders.
During 1988, Ms. Schallock alleged that Mr. Heinze committed multiple
acts of sexual misconduct.
o
At a conference in Sedona during the summer of 1988 Mr. Heinze
placed his hand on Ms. Schallock’s thigh and told Ms. Schallock he
would help her get a job in Phoenix; She responded that she did not
want to get a job that way; Later the same evening Mr. Heinze raped
Ms. Schallock and stated afterward that he would give her a job at
any amount she wanted.
o
In December 1988, after Ms. Schallock was no longer employed at
APAAC, Mr. Heinze insisted Ms. Schallock have lunch with him,
after which he assaulted Ms. Schallock again; When Ms. Schallock
threatened to reveal the rape, Mr. Heinze stated he was a powerful
political figure and that he would take her down with him.
Ms. Shallock and Mrs. Saunders both filed lawsuits against Mr. Heinze and
APAAC seeking damages for sexual assault
In Ms. Shallock’s complaint she alleged:
o
Mr. Heinze was personally liable for a public policy tort (sexual
harassment) and that APAAC was also vicariously liable for a public
policy tort (sexual harassment).
o
APAAC was liable for damages on the theory of negligent retention.
o
Mr. Heinze was personally liable for intentional infliction of
emotional distress and APAAC was also independently and
vicariously liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The State reserved its rights if a court determined that Mr. Heinze’s acts
were outside the coverage or indemnity provided by A.R.S. 41-621
Mr. Heinze believed he would be indemnified by state insurance for any
judgment against him.
Before trial Ms. Schallock entered into a high-low agreement.
The jury returned three verdicts against APAAC and Mr. Heinze; total
liability was $2,385,000.00.
o
Verdict 1: jury found Mr. Heinze liable for intentional or reckless
infliction of emotional distress and/or sexual harassment in the
workplace; damages $1,476,535.50.
o
Verdict 2: Jury found APAAC liable for intentional infliction of
emotional distress and/or sexual harassment in the workplace;
damages $908,446.50.
o
Verdict 3: Jury found APAAC liable for negligent hiring; Damages
$908,446.50.
Ms. Schallock was paid $725,000 for the verdict against APAAC.
Issue:
1.
Whether collateral estoppel applies where a party has fully litigated the issue to
a verdict but a judgment has not been entered because of a settlement between
the parties.
2.
Whether Heinze’s actions were within the terms of the coverage provided by
the state insurance in accordance with A.R.S. 41-621.
Holding or Decision
:
1.
The trial judge erred in granting in granting summary judgment on the basis of
collateral estoppel. The Arizona Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s
judgment in favor of Schallock.
2.
The court of appeals erred in directing judgment in favor of the State. The
Arizona Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals opinion.
3.
Because the Arizona Supreme Court did not accept review of all the issues
raised on appeal, the Court remands the case to the court of appeals for further
proceedings.
Reason:
1.
The doctrine of collateral estoppel is inapplicable to this case, in which no
judgement was entered against the party sought to be estopped.
2.
The record presented to the Arizona Supreme Court does not establish as a
matter of law that Mr. Heinze’s acts were not within the course and scope or
authorization of his employment.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help