Court Opinion

ID: 9562376
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:27:18.92057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:18.579740
License: Public Domain

OP ALA, Justice,
with whom SIMMS and HARGRAVE, JJ., join, dissenting.
Today’s opinion holds this appeal timely. Brought here from judgment on jury verdict, it was commenced within thirty days of the filing of a journal entry. Because the court’s opinion (1) ignores extant jurisprudence1 (teaching that an appealable event takes place when an unreserved general jury verdict is received by the clerk) (2) rejects the procedural coequality of public and private tort law, and (3) misapplies the prospectivity of Manning v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety,2 I recede from its holding.
Ronnie Meadows [Meadows] brought a wrongful death action against the Pittsburg County Board of County Commissioners [County] under the authority of the Governmental Tort Claims Act [GTCA].3 An unreserved jury verdict for Meadows was returned and filed on May 12, 1993. The *743County filed its petition in error Monday, June 14,199S.4 Later — on January 4,1994— a journal entry memorializing this judgment was signed by the trial judge and filed at nisi prius. Amended petition in error came here the next day.
The dispositive issue is whether appeal time was triggered by the filing of a jury verdict on May 12, 1993 or by the January 4, 1994 journal entry.5 I would hold that the former date governs and dismiss the County’s appeal as untimely.
The court rests its holding on the notion that Jaco applies only to “common law cases” and not to actions under the GTCA. Jaco holds that, under the appellate procedure regime by which this case is governed,6 appeal time ran from the filing of a general jury verdict and not from a later-filed journal entry.7 The GTCA provides for government tort liability coextensive with that of private wrongdoers and for a procedural regime that applies in private tort cases.8 By “common law cases” Jaco doubtless means cases triable to a jury as at common law.9 Because both public and private tort actions are triable to a jury,10 unreserved general verdicts returned in either type of case must be given the same effect. For purposes of appellate procedure, appeals in tort cases, private and public, fall into a single class. A legislative attempt to dichotomize them would offend the uniformity of procedure commanded by Aet. 5, §. 46, Okl. Const.11 The procedure *744prescribed by the legislature for public torts — from the pleading stage through trial and judgment — is indistinguishable from that which governs private torts. The same appellate procedure must therefore apply lest the uniformity command be violated.
Today’s opinion misapplies Manning’s rule of prospectivity. In Manning confusion came to be injected by the trial judge’s directive that, in addition to the court’s own complete and signed memorial of the terminal ruling, a party’s counsel prepare another journal entry.12 No similar or like instruction appears in this case. On this record, there is hence no reason to save the County from a “procedural trap for the unwary” and to extend the prospectivity protection extended by Manning.
I cannot accede to today’s holding and to the order allowing the County’s appeal to proceed.

. Rodgers v. Higgins, Okl., 871 P.2d 398, 411-412 (1993); Jaco Production Company v. Luca, Okl., 823 P.2d 364 (1991).

. Okl., 876 P.2d 667 (1994).

. 51 O.S.1991 § 151 et seq.

. The terms of Rule 1.1(b), Rules of Appellate Procedure in Civil Cases, 12 O.S.1991 Ch. 15, App. 2, provide in pertinent part:
"... In computing any time period prescribed by these rules the first day shall be excluded and the last included to complete the period. When the last day of the period so computed falls on a day when the court clerk’s office at which the act is to be performed or the instrument filed is not open during the full business day (until 4:00 p.m.), the period shall be extended to include the next ensuing full business day...."
The terms of 12 O.S.1991 § 990A(A) provided in pertinent part:
"An appeal to the Supreme Court may be commenced by filing a petition in error ... within thirty (30) days from the date the final order or judgment is filed. The filing of the petition in error may be accomplished ... by certified mail.... The date of the mailing ... shall constitute the date of the filing of the petition in error. * * * ”

. Section 990A(A), supra note 4; Eagle Life Ins. Co., Inc. v. Rush, Okl., 832 P.2d 1224 (1992).

. A litigant’s right of appeal is governed by the law in effect when the appealable event takes place. Patmon v. Block, Okl., 851 P.2d 539, 542 (1993); Blacketer v. State, Okl.Cr., 485 P.2d 1069, 1070 (1971); Rudolph v. Jurgensen, 31 Okl. 32, 119 P. 640 (1911); State v. McCafferty, 25 Okl. 2, 105 P. 992, 996 (1909).

. Jaco, supra note 1 at 364. The terms of 12 O.S.1991 § 696.1 provided in pertinent part:
"When a trial by jury has been had, judgment must be entered by the clerk in conformity to the verdict, unless it is special, or the court order the case to be reserved for future argument or consideration.” (Emphasis added.)
"There is no principle of law more firmly established than that the judgment must follow and conform to the [general] verdict [in a common-law action]." (Emphasis added.) Smith v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 25 Okl. 404, 108 P. 626, 627 (1910).

. The terms of 51 O.S.1991 § 153(A) provide in pertinent part:
"The state or a political subdivision shall be liable for loss resulting from its torts ... only where the state or political subdivision, if a private person or entity, would he liable for money damages under the laws of this state_” (Emphasis added.)
Gunn v. Consolidated Rural Water & Sewer, Okl., 839 P.2d 1345, 1349 (1992).

. Rodgers, supra note 1 at 406 n. 38.

. The terms of 51 O.S.1991 § 164 provide in pertinent part:
"The laws and statutes of the State of Oklahoma and the Rules of Civil Procedure, as promulgated and adopted by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma ... shall apply to and govern all actions brought under the provisions of [the GTCA].” (Emphasis added.)
The terms of 12 O.S.1991 § 556 provide in pertinent part:
"... Issues of fact arising in actions for the recovery of money ... shall be tried by a jury...." (Emphasis added.)
The terms of Art. 2, § 19, Okl. Const., provide in pertinent part:
"The right of trial by jury shall be and remain inviolate, except in civil cases wherein the amount in controversy does not exceed One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00), * * * " (Emphasis added.)
See Seymour v. Swart, Okl., 695 P.2d 509, 511— 512 (1985).

. The terms of Art. 5, § 46, Okl. Const., provide in pertinent part:
*744"The Legislature shall not, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, pass any local or special law authorizing:
* * * ⅝ * *
Regulating the practice or jurisdiction of, or changing the rules of evidence in judicial proceedings or inquiries before Ae courts, * * * " (Emphasis added.)

. Manning, supra note 2 at 672.