Opinion ID: 2582605
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Oklahoma's immunity law

Text: ¶ 8 In contrast to federal law, Oklahoma's immunity regime is governed solely by legislative enactments. The common-law doctrine of sovereign immunity stands abrogated in toto by Vanderpool v. State, [5] the watershed case that altered the essence of government immunity that protects public funds from tort claims by private persons. Vanderpool abrogates the judge-made source of that doctrine. It leaves unaffected the power of the legislature to occupy and regulate the entire field of governmental tort liability. The legislative form of Oklahoma's governmental liability, which is incorporated into the body of this State's statutory law, [6] waives immunity only to the extent and in the manner provided in the Act. [7] Save solely for the Act's specific exceptions and limitations, the GTCA extends governmental accountability to all torts for which a private person or entity would be liable. [8] ¶ 9 Acting in a sovereign capacity, states create agencies to perform a wide range of functions at different levels. The subordinate units of government are not themselves sovereign bodies. [9] Rather, they serve as instrumentalities of the state acting pursuant to delegated authority. [10] While EMSA may, in the context of this case, be regarded as falling under the umbrella of government immunity, AMR cannot enjoy the same protection without some explicit legislative declaration. There was here neither implicit nor explicit designation of AMR as public agency. No private contract may be viewed as rising to the status of a legislative declaration that is capable of creating a municipal agency. In short, AMR's contention that tort immunity is ipso facto conferred, explicitly or implicitly, by contractual assignment and performance of functions that coincide with governmental mission is contrary to this court's post-Vanderpool exposition of statutory law.