section 155 liability in Oklahoma

2024No. 1 , 1994 OK CIV APP 156 889 P.2d 1264 ¶40 The School District's third and final requested jury instruction dealt with the § 155(29) exemption from liability resulting from "any claim based upon an act or omission of an employee in the placement of children." 51 O.S. § 155 3.

2024No. 1 , 1994 OK CIV APP 156 889 P.2d 1264 ¶40 The School District's third and final requested jury instruction dealt with the § 155(29) exemption from liability resulting from "any claim based upon an act or omission of an employee in the placement of children." 51 O.S. § 155 3.

2024No. 10 of Dewey Cnty ., 2021 OK CIV APP 34 500 P.3d 649 ¶39 The School District's second requested jury instruction dealt with the § 155(5) exemption from liability resulting from the "[p]erformance of or the failure to exercise or perform any act or service which is in the discretion of the state or political subdivision or its employees." 51 O.S. § 155 Nguyen v. Stat e, 1990 OK 21 788 P.2d 962 State ex rel.

2024No. 10 of Dewey Cnty ., 2021 OK CIV APP 34 500 P.3d 649 ¶39 The School District's second requested jury instruction dealt with the § 155(5) exemption from liability resulting from the "[p]erformance of or the failure to exercise or perform any act or service which is in the discretion of the state or political subdivision or its employees." 51 O.S. § 155 Nguyen v. Stat e, 1990 OK 21 788 P.2d 962 State ex rel.

2024Children's Mem'l Hosp ., 1985 OK 101 710 P.2d 755 ABC Coating Co., Inc. v. J.

2024Children's Mem'l Hosp ., 1985 OK 101 710 P.2d 755 ABC Coating Co., Inc. v. J.

2024No. 10 of Dewey Cnty ., 2021 OK CIV APP 34 500 P.3d 649 ¶39 The School District's second requested jury instruction dealt with the § 155(5) exemption from liability resulting from the "[p]erformance of or the failure to exercise or perform any act or service which is in the discretion of the state or political subdivision or its employees." 51 O.S. § 155 Nguyen v. Stat e, 1990 OK 21 788 P.2d 962 State ex rel.

2022This matter is also not as in Moran wherein we noted that the defendant could be held responsible for an injury that occurred for not acquiring knowledge of the condition of its uncovered sewer manhole; the headstone at issue did not belong to Town. 2003 OK 57 McCathern and Moran , the record before us fails to establish that any defect in the headstone was known by Town or would have been discovered by Town upon inspection. ¶20 Whether Town was exempt from liability under § 155(13) of the GTCA is not determinative of whether Town had a duty to inspect the headstone.

2022This matter is also not as in Moran wherein we noted that the defendant could be held responsible for an injury that occurred for not acquiring knowledge of the condition of its uncovered sewer manhole; the headstone at issue did not belong to Town. 2003 OK 57 McCathern and Moran , the record before us fails to establish that any defect in the headstone was known by Town or would have been discovered by Town upon inspection. ¶20 Whether Town was exempt from liability under § 155(13) of the GTCA is not determinative of whether Town had a duty to inspect the headstone.

2013Also, the initial decision to install a traffic light at the intersection was a discretionary decision exempt from liability pursuant to § 155(5). 3 See also Walker v. City of Moore, 1992 OK 73 , 837 P.2d 876 (concluding the initial decision as to the layout of traffic markings at an intersection are discretionary acts exempt pursuant to § 155(5)).

2013Also, the initial decision to install a traffic light at the intersection was a discretionary decision exempt from liability pursuant to § 155(5). 3 See also Walker v. City of Moore, 1992 OK 73 , 837 P.2d 876 (concluding the initial decision as to the layout of traffic markings at an intersection are discretionary acts exempt pursuant to § 155(5)).

2013Id. at 128, 85 P.3d at 824 .

2001Evans, 1997 OK 97, ¶ 10 , 945 P.2d at 494 .

2001Evans, 1997 OK 97, ¶ 10 , 945 P.2d at 494 .

1999The City moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Governmental Tort Claims Act (the Act), 51 O.S.1991 § 155(6) exempted it from liability. 2 The trial court entered summary judgment for the City and against Prichard, finding that the City was exempt from liability pursuant to § 155(6). 3 ¶ 8 Prichard appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, relying on Schmidt v. Grady County, Oklahoma, 1997 OK 92 , 943 P.2d 595 . 4 We granted certiorari on November 30th, 1998. *916 ¶ 9 THE CITY MAY NOT BE IMMUNE FROM LIABILITY. ¶ 10 Prichard asserts that: 1) municipalities, through their police o

1999The City moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Governmental Tort Claims Act (the Act), 51 O.S.1991 § 155(6) exempted it from liability. 2 The trial court entered summary judgment for the City and against Prichard, finding that the City was exempt from liability pursuant to § 155(6). 3 ¶ 8 Prichard appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, relying on Schmidt v. Grady County, Oklahoma, 1997 OK 92 , 943 P.2d 595 . 4 We granted certiorari on November 30th, 1998. *916 ¶ 9 THE CITY MAY NOT BE IMMUNE FROM LIABILITY. ¶ 10 Prichard asserts that: 1) municipalities, through their police o

1997Section 152’s final provision is intended as a descriptive statement.” Id. at ¶ 11, 890 P.2d at 1338 .

1996Purvey is the latest in a line of recent opinions in which we have held that the State is immune from tort liability to inmates under § 155 subd. 24 for the infinite numbers of activities that are involved in prison operations: Medina v. State, 871 P.2d 1379 (Okla. 1993); Redding v. State, 882 P.2d 61 (Okla.1994); State ex rel., Oklahoma Department of Corrections v. Burris, 894 P.2d 1122 (Okla. 1995).

1996Purvey is the latest in a line of recent opinions in which we have held that the State is immune from tort liability to inmates under § 155 subd. 24 for the infinite numbers of activities that are involved in prison operations: Medina v. State, 871 P.2d 1379 (Okla. 1993); Redding v. State, 882 P.2d 61 (Okla. 1994); State ex rel., Oklahoma Department of Corrections v. Burris, 894 P.2d 1122 (OHa. 1995).

1996Purvey is the latest in a line of recent opinions in which we have held that the State is immune from tort liability to inmates under § 155 subd. 24 for the infinite numbers of activities that are involved in prison operations: Medina v. State, 871 P.2d 1379 (Okla. 1993); Redding v. State, 882 P.2d 61 (Okla.1994); State ex rel., Oklahoma Department of Corrections v. Burris, 894 P.2d 1122 (Okla. 1995).

1996Purvey is the latest in a line of recent opinions in which we have held that the State is immune from tort liability to inmates under § 155 subd. 24 for the infinite numbers of activities that are involved in prison operations: Medina v. State, 871 P.2d 1379 (Okla. 1993); Redding v. State, 882 P.2d 61 (Okla. 1994); State ex rel., Oklahoma Department of Corrections v. Burris, 894 P.2d 1122 (OHa. 1995).

1996Purvey is the latest in a line of recent opinions in which we have held that the State is immune from tort liability to inmates under § 155 subd. 24 for the infinite numbers of activities that are involved in prison operations: Medina v. State, 871 P.2d 1379 (Okla. 1993); Redding v. State, 882 P.2d 61 (Okla.1994); State ex rel., Oklahoma Department of Corrections v. Burris, 894 P.2d 1122 (Okla. 1995).

1996Purvey is the latest in a line of recent opinions in which we have held that the State is immune from tort liability to inmates under § 155 subd. 24 for the infinite numbers of activities that are involved in prison operations: Medina v. State, 871 P.2d 1379 (Okla. 1993); Redding v. State, 882 P.2d 61 (Okla. 1994); State ex rel., Oklahoma Department of Corrections v. Burris, 894 P.2d 1122 (OHa. 1995).