A. The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle, when responding to an emergency call or when in the pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law or when responding to but not upon returning from a fire alarm, may exercise the privilege set forth in this section, but subject to the conditions herein stated. B. The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle may: 1. Park, or stand, irrespective of the provisions of this chapter; 2. Proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign, but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation; 3. Exceed the maximum speed limits so long as speeding does not endanger life or property; 4. Disregard regulations governing direction of movement; and 5. Disregard regulations governing turning in specified directions. C. The exemptions herein granted to the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle shall apply only when the driver is properly and lawfully making use of an audible signal or of flashing red or blue lights or a combination of flashing red and blue lights meeting the requirements of Section 12-218 of this title, except that an authorized emergency vehicle operated as a police vehicle need not be equipped with or display a red or blue light visible from in front of the vehicle. This subsection shall not be construed as requiring a peace officer operating a police vehicle properly and lawfully in response to a crime in progress to use audible signals. D. The exemptions in paragraphs 3 and 5 of subsection B of this section shall be granted to a law enforcement officer operating an authorized emergency vehicle for law enforcement purposes without using audible and visual signals required by this section as long as the action does not endanger life or property if the officer is
following a suspected violator of the law with probable cause to believe that: 1. Knowledge of the presence of the officer will cause the suspect to: a. destroy or lose evidence of a suspected felony, b. end a suspected continuing felony before the officer has obtained sufficient evidence to establish grounds for arrest, or c. evade apprehension or identification of the suspect or the vehicle of the suspect; or 2. Because of traffic conditions, vehicles moving in response to the audible or visual signals may increase the potential for a collision. The exceptions granted in this subsection shall not apply to an officer who is in actual pursuit of a person who is eluding or attempting to elude the officer in violation of Section 540A of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes. E. The provisions of this section shall not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons, nor shall such provisions protect the driver from the consequences of reckless disregard for the safety of others. Added by Laws 1961, p. 373, § 11-106, eff. Sept. 1, 1961. Amended by Laws 1998, c. 168, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 1998; Laws 1999, c. 189, § 1, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 2002, c. 229, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2002; Laws 2004, c. 418, § 12, eff. July 1, 2004.
Notes of Decisions
Smith v. City of Stillwater, 2014 OK 42 (Okla. 2014).
· cites it 22× “Smith also argued that the City did owe a duty of care to Decedent, created by the pursuit policies of the City's police department and by the language of 47 O.S. §11-106. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City on June 10, 2013, finding: 1) the City was…”
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Dep't of Pub. Saf. v. Gurich, 2010 OK 56 (Okla. 2010).
· cites it 4× “2d at 828 (citing Okla. Stat. tit. 47 §§ 11-106 & 11-405). It then declared that the standard that applied to the decision to pursue or continue to pursue was whether the pursuit was conducted in a manner "so extreme or outrageous as to pose a higher threat to public safety than…”
Gowens v. Barstow, 2015 OK 85 (Okla. 2015).
“The trial court wrote that 47 O.S. § 11-106 allows the driver to exceed the maximum speed limits so long as speeding does not endanger life or property.”
Jackson v. Jones, 907 P.2d 1067 (Okla. 1995).
“The terms of 47 O.S.1991 § 11-106 provide in pertinent part: "(a) The driver of an .”
Kelly v. City of Tulsa, 791 P.2d 826 (Okla. Civ. App. 1990).
“The trial court sustained City’s motion upon the sole finding that the due care requirement imposed by 47 O.S.1981 §§ 11-106 and -405 does not apply to an officer’s decision to pursue a law violator.”
Taylor v. City of Oklahoma City, 914 P.2d 1073 (Okla. Civ. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “” Taylor’s response alleged that, at the time of the collision, the officer was operating his vehicle in violation of the duty of care imposed by Oklahoma’s emergency vehicle statutes, 47 O.S.1991 §§ 11-106, and 11-405. Section 11-106 provides that: (a)The driver of an…”
Am. Agency Sys., Inc. v. Marceleno, 2002 OK CIV APP 79 (Okla. Civ. App. 2002).
“She alleged in her petition that "the sole cause of the collision" was the negligence of Employer due to employee Williams' failure to "slow down as necessary for the safe operation of an emergency vehicle before proceeding through a red light in violation of 47 O.S. §…”
Blackburn v. Town of Bokchito, 270 P.3d 226 (Okla. Civ. App. 2011).
“3d at 6 -7 (quoting 47 O.S. § 11-106(BE)). {13 Stating that public policy demands a standard higher than negligence for situations involving emergency vehicles, the Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed with the Oklahoma Legislature's choice of reckless disregard as the standard of care…”
Phillips v. United States (E.D. Okla. 2024).
“2 For a law enforcement officer to meet the standard of “ordinary care during a police pursuit, he must drive with due regard for the safety of all persons, and the officer is liable for the consequences of reckless disregard for the safety of others.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 11-106(8) — 1 case
Smith v. City of Stillwater, 2014 OK 42 (Okla. 2014).
“Smith also argued that the City did owe a duty of care to Decedent, created by the pursuit policies of the City's police department and by the language of 47 O.S. §11-106. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City on June 10, 2013, finding: 1) the City was…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 11-106(A) — 1 case
Smith v. City of Stillwater, 2014 OK 42 (Okla. 2014).
“Smith also argued that the City did owe a duty of care to Decedent, created by the pursuit policies of the City's police department and by the language of 47 O.S. §11-106. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City on June 10, 2013, finding: 1) the City was…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 11-106(B) — 1 case
Smith v. City of Stillwater, 2014 OK 42 (Okla. 2014).
“Smith also argued that the City did owe a duty of care to Decedent, created by the pursuit policies of the City's police department and by the language of 47 O.S. §11-106. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City on June 10, 2013, finding: 1) the City was…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 11-106(BE) — 1 case
Blackburn v. Town of Bokchito, 270 P.3d 226 (Okla. Civ. App. 2011).
“3d at 6 -7 (quoting 47 O.S. § 11-106(BE)). {13 Stating that public policy demands a standard higher than negligence for situations involving emergency vehicles, the Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed with the Oklahoma Legislature's choice of reckless disregard as the standard of care…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 11-106(E) — 2 cases
Smith v. City of Stillwater, 2014 OK 42 (Okla. 2014).
“Smith also argued that the City did owe a duty of care to Decedent, created by the pursuit policies of the City's police department and by the language of 47 O.S. §11-106. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City on June 10, 2013, finding: 1) the City was…”
Phillips v. United States (E.D. Okla. 2024).
“2 For a law enforcement officer to meet the standard of “ordinary care during a police pursuit, he must drive with due regard for the safety of all persons, and the officer is liable for the consequences of reckless disregard for the safety of others.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 11-106(b)(2) — 1 case
Am. Agency Sys., Inc. v. Marceleno, 2002 OK CIV APP 79 (Okla. Civ. App. 2002).
“She alleged in her petition that "the sole cause of the collision" was the negligence of Employer due to employee Williams' failure to "slow down as necessary for the safe operation of an emergency vehicle before proceeding through a red light in violation of 47 O.S. §…”
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.