Court Opinion

ID: 9553050
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:21:12.432702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:29:36.979983
License: Public Domain

ALMA WILSON, Justice,
dissenting:
The district court awarded an attorney fee and court costs in the amount of $12,316.64, plus interest. This fee is for defense of the Crescent Public Works Authority through summary judgment, which appears to be an excessive amount. But of greater importance, today’s affirmance of prevailing party attorney fees in this governmental tort claim action is certain to create disparate treatment of litigants. Accordingly, I must respectfully dissent.
As noted by the majority opinion, the Governmental Tort Claims Act, 51 O.S.1991, §§ 151, et seq., provides maximum amounts of total liability of the state and its political subdivisions. The ordinary meaning of total liability would include prevailing party attorney fees and costs as well as proven damages. Because of the statutory limits on recovery, plaintiffs who have suffered serious loss to property or to person or personal rights caused by tortious governmental acts may not be fully compensated in monetary damages. That is, the seriously injured plaintiffs can not recover their proven damages which exceed the statutory liability limit and, even though prevailing parties, they will never be entitled to an award of attorney fees.