Opinion ID: 1143627
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the political subdivisions tort claims act is the exclusive remedy by which an injured plaintiff may recover against a governmental entity for its negligence

Text: Although this Court abrogated the judicially created doctrine of governmental immunity, in Vanderpool v. State, 672 P.2d 1153, 1157 (Okla. 1983), we acknowledged the Legislature's right to enact sovereign immunity by statute. [2] Our decision in Vanderpool did not purport to alter any existing or future statute covering sovereign immunity. While we have not previously addressed the issue of whether the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act abrogates any previously existing common law right, we have recognized that any limitations in the Act control over general statutory law. [3] Usually, recovery from a negligent tortfeasor is governed by the general comparative negligence statutes. [4] Under these statutes, recovery against joint tortfeasors is limited to that percentage of negligence attributable to each defendant unless the injured plaintiff is found fault free. [5] In determining what remedy is available to an injured plaintiff where the defendant is a governmental tortfeasor, [6] two sections of the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act are applicable: subsection 153(B) and § 170. The plain language of the Act expresses the Legislature's intent to abrogate any common law theories of recovery if a governmental tortfeasor may be liable. The Legislature has specifically abrogated any previously existing common law or statutory right of recovery for torts committed by a governmental entity or its employees while acting within the scope of their employment. [7] In Oklahoma, statutes in derogation of the common law are to be liberally construed in order to promote their object. [8] This construction requires a determination that the only recovery available to a plaintiff negligently damaged by a governmental tortfeasor must be found within the boundaries defined by the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. Subsection 153(B) provides: The liability of a political subdivision under this Act shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of a political subdivision or employee at common law or otherwise.  [9] (Emphasis supplied) Additionally, 51 O.S. 1981 § 170 [10] states that the Act is exclusive, supersedes all home rule charter provisions and special laws, and repeals any conflicting act. [11] The determination of legislative intent controls judicial statutory interpretation; [12] however, it is unnecessary to apply rules of construction to discern Legislative intent if the will is clearly expressed. [13] There are no ambiguities in either Subsection 153(B) or Section 170. Both sections are written in clear, explicit, and mandatory language. [14] The unmistakable conclusion is that if a governmental tortfeasor is involved, the limits of recovery against the tortfeasor are governed by the Act  those seeking to recover from the municipality must fall within its purview.