# Hershel v. University Hospital Foundation

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · April 15, 1980 · 610 P.2d 237

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9564171

## Case

- **Full name:** Ruby J. HERSHEL, Surviving Spouse of Ray Hershel, Deceased, Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL FOUNDATION, Hugh Robinson, M.D., T. Elliott, M.D., J. Parkhurst, M.D., S. Cagle, M.D., Appellees
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** April 15, 1980
- **Citations:** 610 P.2d 237; 1980 OK 60; 1980 Okla. LEXIS 241
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Opala
- **Judges:** Hargrave, Lavender, Hodges, Barnes, Simms, Doolin, Opala, Erwin, Williams
- **Cited by:** 23 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9564171

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9564171. Public record. Not legal advice.