Court Opinion

ID: 9844856
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:10:22.46342+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:45.367281
License: Public Domain

SUMMERS, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
In Boyd v. U.S. ex rel. U.S. Army Corps, 830 P.2d 577 (Okla.1992) we left unresolved the question of whether the Recreational Use Act (2 O.S.1991 § 1301-315) applies to the State of Oklahoma and its subdivisions. That was because the presence of commercial activity in the park area eliminated any possibility of the Act’s availability as a defense, and thus the issue was not before us. Today’s opinion resolves the unanswered question in favor of applicability of the Act for the benefit of the Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA),1 and I agree.
Prior to the enactment of the Governmental Tort Claims Act the GRDA had its own statutory version of a waiver of sovereign immunity for certain types of actions. The GRDA had the right and privilege: “To sue and be sued in its corporate name in contracts, reverse condemnation, tort, equity, mandamus and similar actions.... ” 82 O.S. 1991 § 862(l). The GRDA is liable for “damage caused by said district, its agents, *1145servants and employees in creating, constructing, maintaining or operating said district to any corporation, partnership, person or individual whose property, either real or personal, within or without said district, ...82 O.S.1991 § 862(s). This waiver of sovereign immunity for certain types of actions placed the GRDA in the same position as a private litigant. Grand River Dam Authority v. Grand-Hydro, 188 Okl. 506, 111 P.2d 488, 489-490 (1941). As a private litigant a defendant, and therefore the GRDA, is entitled to the protection afforded by the Recreational Use Act.
The same holds true as to the Governmental Tort Claims Act. The Governmental Tort Claims Act incorporates the law applicable to private persons and makes it applicable to the State and its political subdivisions. The Governmental Tort Claims Act states that the State and its subdivisions shall be liable for loss, subject to the limitations of that Act, “if a private person or entity, would be liable for money damages under the laws of this state.” 51 O.S.1991 § 153. A private person’s liability (and immunity) is determined by application of the Recreational Use Act and thus, so too the liability of the GRDA is determined by application of that Act.
States are divided on this issue. The Supreme Court of Louisiana canvassed the cases and legal articles, and came to the conclusion that those states applying the Recreational Use Act to government agencies did so because in those states a governmental defendant’s liability was imposed to the same extent that liability was imposed upon private individuals. Monteville v. Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government, 567 So.2d 1097, 1103 (La.1990). The Tenth and Ninth Circuit federal courts have also stated that the same policy for applying the Recreational Use Act to private persons is present when a government agency is involved. Jones v. United States of America, 693 F.2d 1299, 1302 (9th Cir.1982); Klepper v. City of Milford, Kansas, 825 F.2d 1440, 1444 (10th Cir.1987). What the Court does today is consistent with 51 O.S.1991 § 153 and those courts that similarly impose governmental liability to the extent that private persons are liable. Thus, I concur with the opinion insofar as it extends the Recreational Use Act to the state and its subdivisions.
Where I must take leave of the Court’s opinion is in its affirmance of the summary judgment. Summary judgment based on the Recreational Use Act is appropriate in a case where the facts are uncontroverted that no “commercial or other activity for profit is conducted on such park area, or any part thereof.” 2 O.S.1991 § 1301-315(C). I do not read the evidentiary material before the trial judge as establishing that as an uncon-troverted fact. Thus I would leave the GRDA’s defense based on an absence of commercial activity for the trier of fact.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice ALMA WILSON, Vice Chief Justice KAU-GER and Justice WATT join in these views.

. The Grand River Dam Authority is a conservation and reclamation district created by statute. 82 O.S.1991 § 861. Section 861 also states that:
Such district shall be, and is hereby declared to be, a governmental agency of the State of Oklahoma, body politic and corporate, with powers of government and with authority to exercise the rights, privileges and functions hereinafter specified, including control storing, preservation and distribution of the waters of the Grand River and its tributaries, for irrigation, power and other useful purposes and reclamation and irrigation of arid, semiarid and other lands needing irrigation, and the conservation and development of the forests, minerals, land, water and other resources and the conservation and development of hydroelectric power and other electrical energy, from whatever source derived, of the State of Oklahoma.