Vanderpool v. State
1983 OK 82, 672 P.2d 1153, 1983 Okla. LEXIS 214 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state or local governmental entity is liable for torts committed by its employees acting within the scope of their employment to the same extent as a private person, except for acts involving legislative, judicial, or fundamental policy-making administrative functions.
Facts:
- Vanderpool was employed as an office worker by the Oklahoma Historical Society, a state agency.
- The Oklahoma Historical Society operated and maintained Fort Washita, a state historical site, for the benefit of the public.
- While on the grounds of Fort Washita to deliver a telephone message, a fellow employee was mowing weeds with a “Brush Hog” mower.
- A protective shield on the mower had allegedly been removed by a state employee, making the machine defective.
- The mower threw a rock that struck Vanderpool in the eye, resulting in the permanent loss of sight in her right eye.
Procedural Posture:
- Vanderpool sued the State of Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Historical Society in district court for damages.
- The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the action was barred by the doctrine of governmental immunity.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed Vanderpool's case.
- Vanderpool, as appellant, appealed the district court's dismissal to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of governmental immunity bar a tort claim against a state agency for personal injuries resulting from the alleged negligence of its employee engaged in what was traditionally considered a governmental function?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Lavender
No, governmental immunity does not bar the claim. The doctrine of governmental immunity, specifically the distinction between governmental and proprietary functions, is no longer determinative in assessing tort liability for government entities in Oklahoma. The court found the doctrine to be unsupported by reason and justice, noting the overwhelming trend in other jurisdictions toward its abrogation. It held that the judicially created distinction between governmental and proprietary functions had become unworkable and confusing. The court concluded that where the reason for a judicially created rule no longer exists, it is the court's duty to abrogate it. Therefore, the state is now liable for its torts to the same extent as a private person, with limited exceptions for core governmental functions.
Dissenting - Justice Irwin
Yes, governmental immunity should bar the claim. The decision to abrogate sovereign immunity belongs to the Legislature, not the courts. The dissent argues that the Legislature has demonstrated its intent to maintain sovereign immunity for the state by its specific and limited legislative waivers. For instance, the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act deliberately excluded the state, and other statutes waive immunity only to the extent of insurance coverage. This legislative inaction regarding a broad waiver for the state should be interpreted as an intent to preserve the doctrine, and the court oversteps its authority by judicially abolishing it.
Analysis:
This landmark decision judicially abrogated the common-law doctrine of sovereign immunity for the State of Oklahoma, a significant departure from over a century of precedent. By discarding the confusing governmental-proprietary function test, the court established a new, broader framework for government tort liability modeled on the Federal Tort Claims Act. This ruling shifted the burden to the Oklahoma Legislature to define the scope of state liability, likely prompting the creation of a comprehensive state tort claims act. The decision's prospective application was a pragmatic move to allow the legislature time to address the fiscal and administrative implications of this fundamental change in law.
