recognizing the Court's treatment of SIF in Bone involved a holding that SIF was a State enterprise engaged in a proprietary function not entitled to sovereign immunity
How later courts described this case
- recognizing the Court's treatment of SIF in Bone involved a holding that SIF was a State enterprise engaged in a proprietary function not entitled to sovereign immunity
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
OPALA, Justice,
concurring specially:
I join the court’s opinion because it represents a significant stage toward withholding from our recognition that anachronistic norm of judge-made law which relieves the state from liability for all tortious conduct *243 by persons acting under its authority. 1 The solution offered by today’s pronouncement is far from satisfactory. State functions do not naturally fall into a dichotomous governmental/proprietary division. Our attempt to so arrange them is bound to be productive of much sophistry via a strained application of ill-suited test criteria. If this is indeed likely to happen, the life of the intermediate stage we launch today will be short and its demise imminent and near. 2
I am authorized to state that HODGES and DOOLIN, JJ., concur in these views.
. Walton v. Charles Pfizer & Co., Inc., Okl., 590 P.2d 1190 [1979].
. My views are stated in Walton v. Charles Pfizer & Co., Inc., supra note 1 at 1194 (special concurring opinion by Opala, J.) and in Terry v. Edgin, Okl., 598 P.2d 228, 238 [1979], (special concurring opinion by Opala, J.).