Court Opinion

ID: 9563528
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:41:07.85666+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:53.858798
License: Public Domain

¶ 1
KAUGER, C.J.,
dissenting:
¶2 I join Justice Simms’ dissent to the extent that he disagrees with the majority’s holding that the plaintiff in a governmental tort claims action may not recover attorneys’ fees in excess of the monetary limits imposed by 51 O.S.Supp.1994 § 154.1 I write separately to emphasize that although the Court acknowledged in Rout v. Crescent Public Works Auth., 1994 OK 85, 878 P.2d 1045, 1050, that the Governmental Tort Claims Act [Act], 51 O.S.1991 § 151 et seq. contains limits on the government’s total liability,2 the issue of whether an award of attorney’s fees and costs under 12 O.S.1991 § 9403 constituted a recovery subject to the monetary limits of the Act was not presented.4
¶ 3 Art. 2, § 6 of the Oklahoma Constitu*1192tion5 requires that courts be open to all on the same terms without prejudice. The framers of the Constitution intended that all individuals be allowed to pursue an effective remedy designed to protect basic and fundamental rights.6 The constitutional guarantee of equal access to courts is not an empty formality or an inconsequential right which can be avoided or ignored.7
¶4 In Professional Credit Collections v. Smith, 1997 OK 19, 933 P.2d 307, 311, this Court held that a statute violated equal access to the courts when it treated — for attorneys’ fees purposes — a victorious plaintiff differently from a successful defendant.8 The majority recognizes9 that a situation might arise under which a governmental entity would seek attorneys’ fees under 12 O.S.1991 § 94010 in excess of the $25,000 cap imposed by 51 O.S.Supp.1991 § 154(A)(1).11 Failure to allow an injured plaintiff to collect an attorneys’ fee under the same circumstances under which the government could prevail is a violation of the constitutional guarantees afforded by art. 2, § 6. I dissent.

. Title 51 O.S.Supp.1994 § 154 provides in pertinent part:
"A. The total liability of the state and its political subdivisions on claims within the scope of this act. Section 151 et seq. of this title, arising out of an accident or occurrence happening after the effective date of this act. Section 151 et seq. of this title, shall not exceed:
1. Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) for any claim or to any claimant who has more than one claim for loss of property arising out of a single act, accident, or occurrence;
2. One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,-000.00) to any claimant for his claim for any other loss arising out of a single act, accident, or occurrence....
3. One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) for any number of claims arising out of a single occurrence or accident....”

. Rout v. Crescent Public Works Auth., 1994 OK 85, 878 P.2d 1045, 1050, footnote # 21 provides in pertinent part:
"... The Act adopts the doctrine of sovereign immunity, allows liability only under certain circumstances, and then limits the total amount of liability....”

. Title 12 O.S.1991 § 940 provides in pertinent part:
"A. In any civil action to recover damages for the negligent or willful injury to property and any other incidental costs related to such action, the prevailing party shall be allowed reasonable attorney's fees, court costs and interest to be set by the court and to be taxed and collected as other costs of the action...."

. Rout v. Crescent Public Works Auth., see note 2 at 1051, supra, footnote # 30 provides in pertinent part:
"We need not decide in this case whether an award of attorney’s fees and costs under 12 O.S.1991 § 940 ... constitutes a recovery subject to the monetary limits of the Governmental Tort Claims Act. 51 O.S.1991 § 154 ...”

. The Okla. Const. art. 2, § 6 provides:
"The courts of justice of the State shall be open to every person, and speedy and certain remedy afforded for every wrong and for every injury to person, property, or reputation; and right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial, delay, or prejudice."

. Woody v. State ex rel. Dept. of Corrections, 1992 OK 45, 833 P.2d 257, 260; Moses v. Hoebel, 1982 OK 26, 646 P.2d 601, 605.

. Woody v. State ex rel. Dept. of Corrections, see note 6, supra.

. See also, Thayer v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 1980 OK 45, 613 P.2d 1041, 1045; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Mashore, 1908 OK -, 21 Okla. 275, 96 P. 630, 633.

. See, footnote # 3, majority opinion.

. Title 12 O.S.1991 § 940, see note 3, supra.

. Title 51 O.S.Supp. 1994 § 154(A)(1), see note 1, supra.