Okla. Stat. » Title 23 — DAMAGES
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 13 (2026)

Comparative negligence

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In all actions hereafter brought, whether arising before or after the effective date of this act, for negligence resulting in personal injuries or wrongful death, or injury to property, contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery, unless any negligence of the person so injured, damaged or killed, is of greater degree than any negligence of the person, firm or corporation causing such damage, or unless any negligence of the person so injured, damaged or killed, is of greater degree than the combined negligence of any persons, firms or corporations causing such damage. Added by Laws 1979, c. 38, § 1, operative July 1, 1979.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Graham v. Keuchel, 847 P.2d 342 (Okla. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Graham v. Keuchel, 847 P.2d 342 (Okla. 1993). · cites it 4× “23 O.S.1991 §§ 13, 14. 99 A negligent plaintiff may recover part of his damages if defendant’s negligence is established unless his fault is greater than that of the defendant.”
Fuller v. Odom, 741 P.2d 449 (Okla. 1987). · cites it 3× “1981 §§ 13 and 14 provide, respectively: 'In all actions hereafter brought, whether arising before or after the effective date of this act, for negligence resulting in personal injuries or wrongful death, or injury to property, contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery,…”
Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Todd, 813 P.2d 508 (Okla. 1991). · cites it 3× “*519 IV TODAY’S OPINION REFUSES TO SUBJECT LIQUOR SUPPLIERS TO A NEW FORM OF PASS-THROUGH CRIMINAL ACCOUNTABILITY THAT WOULD MAKE THEM CIVILLY ANSWERABLE TO A DRUNK CONSUMER FOR LOSSES FROM THE LATTER’S VIOLATIONS OF THE STATE’S PENAL CODE WHILE IN A STATE OF VOLUNTARY…”
Bode v. Clark Equip. Co., 719 P.2d 824 (Okla. 1986). · cites it 4× “Once again, 23 O.S.Supp.1979 §§ 13, 14 2 abolished contributory negligence as an absolute defense and provided that an injured person may recover for injuries from any person, firm or corporation causing such injuries, unless the negligence of a person so injured is greater than…”
Smith v. Jenkins, 873 P.2d 1044 (Okla. 1994). · cites it 5× “After a jury-waived trial the court found the parties to have been equally at fault; in conformity to the comparative-negligence statute, 23 O.S.1981 § 13, 1 the nisi prius judgment went to each party for 50% of its property damage — $645.”
Sullivan v. Scoular Grain Co. of Utah, 853 P.2d 877 (Utah 1993). · cites it 2× “2d 1222, 1224 (1986) (same); Oklahoma, Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 23, § 13 (1987), Bode v.”
Boyles v. Oklahoma Nat. Gas Co., 619 P.2d 613 (Okla. 1980). · cites it 2× “38 § 4 and replaced by 23 O.S.Supp.1979 § 13. 7 . McNichols, Judicial Elimination of Joint and Several Liability Because of Comparative Negligence A Puzzling Choice, 32 Okla.”
Fleming v. Baptist Gen. Convention, 742 P.2d 1087 (Okla. 1987). · cites it 2× “The parties do not raise, and we do not consider, the applicability of 23 O.S.1981 §§ 13 and 14 which were effective July 1, 1979.”
McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992). “19 (Anderson 1991); Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 23, §§ 13, 14 (West 1987); Or.”
Strong v. Allen, 768 P.2d 369 (Okla. 1989). · cites it 3× “See Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 13 (1981). The defendants also prevailed with regard to the child's claims for compensatory and exemplary damages.”
Stroud v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 2001 OK 76 (Okla. 2001). “[9] See 23 O.S.1991 § 13, which provides in pertinent part: "In all actions hereafter brought, whether arising before or after the effective date of this act, for negligence resulting in personal injuries or wrongful death, or injury to property, contributory negligence shall…”
Am. Agency Sys., Inc. v. Marceleno, 2002 OK CIV APP 79 (Okla. Civ. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “And, because Employer's percentage of fault had been adjudicated to be greater than 50% — a finding not subject to relitigation due to application of the doctrine of estoppel by judgment — AASI, "as subrogee of Sinor," was barred from seeking any recovery under comparative…”
Show all 35 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.