Opinion ID: 3162773
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: NRH Asserts The Trial Court Failed To Apportion Liability.

Text: ¶30 NRH alleges the trial court erred by not apportioning any liability to the City of Norman (City). In its Brief in Chief, NRH asserts the City was negligent in constructing and maintaining the intersection and it was either the direct cause of the accident or had some causal connection with it. NRH relies on the testimony of Officer Fennell who said the intersection was dangerous and he had made official complaints concerning it. He also testified that the intersection was eventually modified. NRH interprets his testimony to say the intersection was dangerous because of the way it was constructed. It appears from Officer Fennell's testimony, however, that he was referring to why part of Alameda was shut down after modifications and not to the dangerousness of the intersection based upon its construction. 8 ¶31 At trial, the possibility of City's negligence was mentioned only briefly. NRH's attorney asserted to the trial court that [w]ell, you know, we allege third-party negligence, so that's another option that's available. 9 In its Brief in Chief, NRH cites as its sole authority, Fuller v. Odom , 1987 OK 64, 741 P.2d 449, wherein this Court determined a GTCA covered entity is liable only for that percentage of damages caused by its own negligence. In that case the GTCA covered entity was a party to the case. Here the City is not even a party to the case. We have previously held that the negligence of tort-feasors who are not parties to a lawsuit, ghost tort-feasors, should be considered by the trier of fact in order to properly apportion the negligence of the parties. Paul v. N.L. Industries, Inc., 1980 OK 127, ¶5, 624 P.2d 68, 70. However, NRH's brief makes no mention of or presents any authority concerning the applicability of ghost tort-feasors to this case. ¶32 Regardless, there was no evidence presented to support the assertion that the City was negligent in its construction or maintenance of the intersection. In Walker v. City of Moore, 1992 OK 73, ¶12, 837 P.2d 876, we held the layout of a street is a discretionary act exempted under the GTCA. 10 However, we also determined once created the negligent maintenance of the street was not exempted. Walker, 1992 OK 73 at ¶12; see also, Smith ex rel. Smith v. City of Oklahoma City, 2013 OK CIV APP 34, 299 P.3d 519. Here the dangerousness of the intersection as described by the witnesses concerns the layout of the intersection and not its maintenance. The testimony alone concerning the dangerousness of the intersection without proof of negligence on part of the City did not persuade the trial court to apportion liability. We do not find any error in the trial court's decision not to apportion liability to the City.