Court Opinion

ID: 9582259
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:24:15.705506+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:35.231011
License: Public Domain

HARGRAVE, Justice,
dissenting.
It is true that notice provisions of the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act may be satisfied without strict compliance with the act’s provisions therefor. Duesterhaus v. City of Edmond, 634 P.2d 720 (Okl.1981). In implementing this holding, it need be remembered strict compliance with 51 O.S. 1981 § 156 requires written notice of claim filed with the clerk of the governing body of the political subdivision within specified time limits. Under Duesterhaus, actual notice to a superintendent, foreman or manager will suffice where no prejudice results. Notice to non-managerial personnel is insufficient. (Bus driver) Graves v. Rose, et al., 663 P.2d 733 (Okl.1983). Similarly, Graves states notice of a claim for relief is not the same as notice of an injury.
Verbal notification to an insurance agent is not substantial compliance with the act. It is notice to a third party under little or no formal duty to transmit that information to the clerk of the government body. Secondly, the notice here validated is notice of an injury, not claim for relief.
The majority opinion admits this procedure is not authorized by statute, but states it serves the purposes sought to be accomplished by the act. I respectfully disagree with this statement. Duesterhaus states notice is required to facilitate correction of dangerous conditions, to allow financial planning to meet fiscal liabilities, and for speedy settlement. Patently, the notice here approved to an insurance agent serves only one of these three purposes — settlement.
The Legislature has provided a comprehensive plan for recovery of claims from political subdivisions. The notice here approved varies so greatly from that provided by the Legislature that it should not be held to substantially comply with the act.
I therefore dissent.