Court Opinion

ID: 9786300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 23:52:46.177715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:45.040877
License: Public Domain

*268WINCHESTER, J.,
with whom HODGES, J., joins, dissents:
1 1 I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority opinion that 51 O.S8.S8upp.2000, § 152(2) controls, and that "If AMR is an entity designated to act in behalf of EMSA, a public trust, then it is an 'agency' of EMSA, a political subdivision under the GTCA." Marjority Opinion 116. I believe it could be such an entity. AMR's status as a private contractor does not automatically exclude it from protection under the Governmental Tort Claims Act. The exclusion of "an independent contractor" from the definition of "employee," in § 152(5)(a)(1) is not a clear expression of the Legislature that private contractors be excluded from protection under the Act.
1f 2 When a private contractor acts with the express consent of the city, as the sole agent of a public trust, serving the public in the same manner as a public servant, then it is entitled to the same protection the city would receive. By referring to other entities in § 152(5)(a)(1), the Legislature has recognized that cities may perform traditional functions or they may choose to contract that service exclusively to one private business. Section 152(2) contemplates that it may be more economical for a city to hire one private business to provide the service to the citizens than it would be for the city to erect buildings, purchase and maintain equipment and pay salaries and benefits to city employees, thus creating a whole new department. This is especially true for small towns that may find it more economical to contract out their ambulance service along with several other small towns. - Individually, providing the service may be prohibitive, but collectively they may be able to provide the service. As business and government partner to solve the problems of the citizens, each should be able to utilize the law to its fullest. As cities and counties turn more to private contractors to efficiently perform public services that are normally performed by their employees, as Tulsa County has with a jail run by Corree-tions Corporation of America,1 such contractors should not be penalized merely because of their private status.
T3 The protection of the Governmental Tort Claims Act should extend to a private contractor where the sole and only service is a substitute for a service ordinarily provided by the city, which serves the public for the public good pursuant to the private contractor's agreement with the city. Although a private contractor has not been charged by law with the responsibility of conducting public business before it contracts with the city, where the Legislature permits an agency to hire a private contractor to perform a service traditionally provided by the city, the contract itself creates a duty to the public the contractor serves. Each case must be determined by its facts according to how extensive a private contractor has taken on a public duty customarily provided by a government agency. For this reason, the question of whether a private contractor is providing services to the public as an agent of the city and entitled to the protection of the Governmental Tort Claims Act should be a fact question.

. Tulsa Co. F.O.P., Lodge No. 188 v. Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa Co., 2000 OK 2, 995 P.2d 1124.