Okla. Stat. » Title 23 — DAMAGES
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 3 (2026)

Right to damages - Definition of damages

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

Any person who suffers detriment from the unlawful act or omission of another, may recover from the person in fault a compensation therefor in money, which is called damages. R.L. 1910, § 2845.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases, 1964–2012 · leading case: Williams v. Hook, 804 P.2d 1131 (Okla. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Williams v. Hook, 804 P.2d 1131 (Okla. 1991). · cites it 4× “Allowing a child to recover for the loss of parental consortium may aid in ensuring the child's normal and complete mental development. [25] The Legislature has provided that money damages may be awarded for the unlawful acts or omissions of third parties pursuant to 23 O.”
Frank v. Allstate Ins. Co., 727 P.2d 577 (Okla. 1986). · cites it 4× “Pursuant to 23 O.S.1981 § 3 [9] any person who suffers detriment from the unlawful act or omission of another may recover from the person at fault compensation in money damages.”
Cooper v. Parker-Hughey, 894 P.2d 1096 (Okla. 1995). · cites it 2× “1981, §§ 1 through 4, when read with 23 O.S.1981, § 3, authorize an action for perjury.”
WRG Constr. Co. v. Hoebel, 600 P.2d 334 (Okla. 1979). · cites it 2× “8 Our statutory law, which in 23 O.S.1971 § 3 defines “damages” in the common-law sense, leaves us here without a choice but to accept that sense for § 2.”
Tate v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., 833 P.2d 1218 (Okla. 1992). “The terms of 23 O.S.1981 § 3 provide: "Any person who suffers detriment from the unlawful act or omission of another, may recover from the person in fault a compensation therefor in money, which is called damages.”
Silver v. Slusher, 770 P.2d 878 (Okla. 1989). “1981 § 1; 23 O.S.1981 § 3. Further, the insureds here are not precluded from recovery under a theory of constructive fraud because they stood within the Special Relationship of Insured to Insurer.”
McCormack v. Oklahoma Publ'g Co., 613 P.2d 737 (Okla. 1980). “3 23 O.S.1971 § 3 4 is broad enough to cover a neoteric cause of action not present when the common law was adopted.”
Stroud v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 2001 OK 76 (Okla. 2001). “" [19] For a general discussion of an auditor's responsibilities, see Kenneth Edward Shore, Watching the Watchdog: An Argument For Auditor Liability To Third Parties, 53 SMU L.”
Webb v. Dayton Tire & Rubber Co. Etc., 697 P.2d 519 (Okla. 1985). “1979), this Court recognized that the common law definition of damages governing actions in tort, now codified at 23 O.S.1981 § 3, is applicable to the penalty clause of 85 O.”
Karriman v. Orthopedic Clinic, 488 P.2d 1250 (Okla. 1971). · cites it 3× “LAVENDER, Justice (dissenting) : I would hold that because of Section 6 of Article 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution and 23 O.S.1961 § 3; 25 O.S.1961 § 29; and 32 O.”
McCormick v. Halliburton Co., 895 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (W.D. Okla. 2012). · cites it 2× “Further, even if Article 2, § 2 did provide a basis in Oklahoma law for a medical monitoring remedy, the Court finds that a medical monitoring remedy based upon Article 2, § 2 would only apply to governmental intrusions.”
Cooper v. Bondoni, 841 P.2d 608 (Okla. Civ. App. 1992). “In terms of duty these statutes impose on every person a duty to abstain from willful or careless conduct which can cause or contribute to the injury of another. And “[a]ny person who suffers detriment from the unlawful act or omission of another, may recover from the person in…”
Show all 19 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.