explaining that “object of [GTCA] was to make State and its political subdivisions liable in tort, except where the Legislature specifically and explicitly provided exemptions from liability”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that “object of [GTCA] was to make State and its political subdivisions liable in tort, except where the Legislature specifically and explicitly provided exemptions from liability”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BUETTNER, Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent. The exemption from liability found in 51 O.S.1991 § 155(8) concerning “ice conditions” cannot be read to mean ice formed solely as a result of natural weather conditions. Otherwise, the last phrase of the exemption: “unless the condition is affirmatively caused by the negligent act of the state,” would be superfluous because the state can never cause a natural weather condition. This phrase seems to be more consistent with the idea of a man-made icy condition like a broken pipe that puts ice on a highway, or a person moving ice or snow and thereby creating a dangerous condition. The state would not be liable unless there was an affirmative negligent act of the state regarding the broken pipe, or the movement of the snow or ice.
In this ease, ice formed on the roadway as a result of a release of water from the dam by the United States Corps of Engineers. There is no evidence that a negligent act of the state caused the icy condition. The legislatively created exemption was properly applied in this ease. As a result, I would affirm the summary judgment and not reach the applicability of § 155(15).