Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 155 (2026)

Exemptions from liability

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

The state or a political subdivision shall not be liable if a loss or claim results from: 1. Legislative functions; 2. Judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutorial functions, other than claims for wrongful criminal felony conviction resulting in imprisonment provided for in Section 154 of this title; 3. Execution or enforcement of the lawful orders of any court; 4. Adoption or enforcement of or failure to adopt or enforce a law, whether valid or invalid, including, but not limited to, any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation or written policy; 5. Performance 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; 6. Civil disobedience, riot, insurrection or rebellion or the failure to provide, or the method of providing, police, law enforcement or fire protection; 7. Any claim based on the theory of attractive nuisance; 8. Snow or ice conditions or temporary or natural conditions on any public way or other public place due to weather conditions, unless the condition is affirmatively caused by the negligent act of the state or a political subdivision; 9. Entry upon any property where that entry is expressly or implied authorized by law; 10. Natural conditions of property of the state or political subdivision; 11. Assessment or collection of taxes or special assessments, license or registration fees, or other fees or charges imposed by law; 12. Licensing powers or functions including, but not limited to, the issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of or failure or refusal to issue, deny, suspend or revoke any permit, license, certificate, approval, order or similar authority; 13. Inspection powers or functions, including failure to make an inspection, review or approval, or making an inadequate or

negligent inspection, review or approval of any property, real or personal, to determine whether the property complies with or violates any law or contains a hazard to health or safety, or fails to conform to a recognized standard; 14. Any loss to any person covered by any workers' compensation act or any employer's liability act; 15. Absence, condition, location or malfunction of any traffic or road sign, signal or warning device unless the absence, condition, location or malfunction is not corrected by the state or political subdivision responsible within a reasonable time after actual or constructive notice or the removal or destruction of such signs, signals or warning devices by third parties, action of weather elements or as a result of traffic collision except on failure of the state or political subdivision to correct the same within a reasonable time after actual or constructive notice. Nothing herein shall give rise to liability arising from the failure of the state or any political subdivision to initially place any of the above signs, signals or warning devices. The signs, signals and warning devices referred to herein are those used in connection with hazards normally connected with the use of roadways or public ways and do not apply to the duty to warn of special defects such as excavations or roadway obstructions; 16. Any claim which is limited or barred by any other law; 17. Misrepresentation, if unintentional; 18. An act or omission of an independent contractor or consultant or his or her employees, agents, subcontractors or suppliers or of a person other than an employee of the state or political subdivision at the time the act or omission occurred; 19. Theft by a third person of money in the custody of an employee unless the loss was sustained because of the negligence or wrongful act or omission of the employee; 20. Participation in or practice for any interscholastic or other athletic contest sponsored or conducted by or on the property of the state or a political subdivision; 21. Participation in any activity approved by a local board of education and held within a building or on the grounds of the school district served by that local board of education before or after normal school hours or on weekends; 22. Use of indoor or outdoor school property and facilities made available for public recreation before or after normal school hours or on weekends or school vacations, except those claims resulting from willful and wanton acts of negligence. For purposes of this paragraph: a. "public" includes, but is not limited to, students during nonschool hours and school staff when not working as employees of the school, and

b. "recreation" means any indoor or outdoor physical activity, either organized or unorganized, undertaken for exercise, relaxation, diversion, sport or pleasure, and that is not otherwise covered by paragraph 20 or 21 of this section; 23. Any court-ordered, Department of Corrections or county approved work release program; provided, however, this provision shall not apply to claims from individuals not in the custody of the Department of Corrections based on accidents involving motor vehicles owned or operated by the Department of Corrections; 24. The activities of the state military forces when on state active duty orders or on Title 32 active duty orders; 25. Provision, equipping, operation or maintenance of any prison, jail or correctional facility, or injuries resulting from the parole or escape of a prisoner or injuries by a prisoner to any other prisoner; provided, however, this provision shall not apply to claims from individuals not in the custody of the Department of Corrections based on accidents involving motor vehicles owned or operated by the Department of Corrections; 26. Provision, equipping, operation or maintenance of any juvenile detention facility, or injuries resulting from the escape of a juvenile detainee, or injuries by a juvenile detainee to any other juvenile detainee; 27. Any claim or action based on the theory of manufacturer's products liability or breach of warranty, either expressed or implied; 28. Any claim or action based on the theory of indemnification or subrogation; provided, however, a political subdivision as defined in subparagraph s of paragraph 11 of Section 152 of this title may enter into a contract with a contract operator or any railroad operating in interstate commerce that sells a property interest or provides services to a regional transportation authority, or allows the regional transportation authority to use the railroad's property or tracks for the provision of public passenger rail service, providing for the allocation of financial responsibility, indemnification, or the procurement of insurance for the parties for all types of claims or damages, provided that funds have been appropriated to cover the resulting contractual obligation at the time the contract is executed. The acquisition of commercial liability insurance to cover the activities of the regional transportation authority, contract operator or railroad shall not operate as a waiver of any of the liabilities, immunities or defenses provided for political subdivisions pursuant to the provisions of The Governmental Tort Claims Act. A contract entered into under this paragraph shall not affect rights of employees under the Federal Employers Liability Act or the Federal Railway Labor Act;

29. Any claim based upon an act or omission of an employee in the placement of children; 30. Acts or omissions done in conformance with then current recognized standards; 31. Maintenance of the state highway system or any portion thereof unless the claimant presents evidence which establishes either that the state failed to warn of the unsafe condition or that the loss would not have occurred but for a negligent affirmative act of the state; 32. Any confirmation of the existence or nonexistence of any effective financing statement on file in the office of the Secretary of State made in good faith by an employee of the office of the Secretary of State as required by the provisions of Section 1-9- 320.6 of Title 12A of the Oklahoma Statutes; 33. Any court-ordered community sentence; 34. Remedial action and any subsequent related maintenance of property pursuant to and in compliance with an authorized environmental remediation program, order, or requirement of a federal or state environmental agency; 35. The use of necessary and reasonable force by a school district employee to control and discipline a student during the time the student is in attendance or in transit to and from the school, or any other function authorized by the school district; 36. Actions taken in good faith by a school district employee for the out-of-school suspension of a student pursuant to applicable Oklahoma Statutes; or 37. Use of a public facility opened to the general public during an emergency. Added by Laws 1978, c. 203, § 5, eff. July 1, 1978. Amended by Laws 1979, c. 203, § 1, emerg. eff. May 25, 1979; Laws 1984, c. 226, § 6, eff. Oct. 1, 1985; Laws 1986, c. 66, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 1986; Laws 1987, c. 69, § 12; Laws 1988, c. 134, § 4, emerg. eff. April 19, 1988; Laws 1988, c. 241, § 2, eff. Nov. 1, 1988; Laws 1991, c. 55, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Laws 1994, c. 290, § 60, eff. July 1, 1994; Laws 1997, c. 133, § 74, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 2000, c. 371, § 174, eff. July 1, 2001; Laws 2003, c. 304, § 3, emerg. eff. May 28, 2003; Laws 2004, c. 381, § 1, emerg. eff. June 3, 2004; Laws 2009, c. 228, § 85, eff. Nov. 1, 2009; Laws 2012, c. 16, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2012; Laws 2013, c. 15, § 34, emerg. eff. April 8, 2013; Laws 2016, c. 273, § 3, eff. Nov. 1, 2016; Laws 2021, c. 241, § 3, eff. Nov. 1, 2021; Laws 2022, c. 228, § 21, emerg. eff. May 5, 2022. NOTE: Laws 1984, c. 228, § 4 repealed by Laws 1985, c. 357, § 5, operative Oct. 1, 1985. Laws 2009, c. 98, § 12 repealed by Laws 2010, c. 2, § 24, emerg. eff. March 3, 2010. Laws 2012, c. 14, § 1 repealed by Laws 2013, c. 15, § 35, emerg. eff. April 8, 2013. Laws 2021, c. 12, § 29 repealed by Laws 2022, c. 228, § 22, emerg. eff. May 5, 2022.

NOTE: Laws 1998, 1st Ex. Sess., c. 2, § 23 amended the effective date of Laws 1997, c. 133, § 74 from July 1, 1998 to July 1, 1999.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 160 cases (36 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Smith v. City of Stillwater, 2014 OK 42 (Okla. 2014).
Smith v. City of Stillwater, 2014 OK 42 (Okla. 2014). · cites it 18× “¶6 In response, Smith argued that pursuant to Gurich , the City was not immune to suit based on the protections of 51 O.S. §155. 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…”
Barrios v. Haskell Cnty. Pub. Facilities Auth., 432 P.3d 233 (Okla. 2018). · cites it 6× “Provision, equipping, operation or maintenance of any prison, jail or correctional facility, or injuries resulting from the parole or escape of a prisoner or injuries by a prisoner to any other prisoner; provided, however, this provision shall not apply to claims from…”
Nguyen v. State, 788 P.2d 962 (Okla. 1990). · cites it 14× “Thirty carefully enumerated exemptions from liability are provided in 51 O.S.Supp. 1989, § 155. Subparagraph five is the discretionary function exemption.”
Gutteridge v. State of Oklahoma, 878 F.3d 1233 (10th Cir. 2018). · cites it 4× “See Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 51, § 155 (29) (“The state or a political subdivision shall not be liable if a loss or claim results from .”
Childs v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma State Univ., 848 P.2d 571 (Okla. 1993). · cites it 12× “The dispositive issue for review is whether the amended provisions of 51 O.S.Supp. 1988 § 155(14) of the Governmental Tort Claims Act [Tort Claims Act] 1 extended the State’s immunity to include its liability to persons, not then in the employ of the State of Oklahoma, who were…”
Sanders v. Turn Key Health Clinics, 2025 OK 19 (Okla. 2025). · cites it 33× “The nature of the alleged wrongful act is also used in 51 O.S.Supp.2022, § 155 ¶41 The present controversy involves the nature of the alleged wrongful conduct as well as the status criterion of who is an "employee" for the purposes of the GTCA.”
Medina v. State, 871 P.2d 1379 (Okla. 1993). · cites it 9× “, the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma certified the following question of state law to this Court: Does the dispensing of medicine to an inmate in a state penal institution by a state employee come within the exception provided by Okla.Stat.…”
Courtney v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Dep't of Pub. Saf., 722 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2013). · cites it 6× “Recently, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held unconstitutional and declared void a bill which amended provisions of Okla. Stat. tit. 51 § 155. See Douglas v.”
Jackson Cnty. Emergency Med. Serv. Dist. v. Kirkland, 2024 OK 4 (Okla. 2024). · cites it 20× “¶32 In this regard, the GTCA provides in 51 O.S. 2021 §155 that: The state or a political subdivision shall not be liable if a loss or claim results from: .”
Salazar v. City of Oklahoma City, 1999 OK 20 (Okla. 1999). · cites it 5× “The exemptions, set forth in 51 O.S.1991 § 155 address circumstances where the state expressly retains its sovereign immunity/ The terms of § 155 provide that the state or a political subdivision shall not be liable if a loss or claim results from any one of thirty specified…”
Prichard v. City of Oklahoma City, 1999 OK 5 (Okla. 1999). · cites it 8× “Title 51 O.S.1991 § 155. 10 . Krokowski v. Henderson Nat'l Corp.”
Gunn v. Consol. Rural Water & Sewer Dist. No. 1, 839 P.2d 1345 (Okla. 1992). · cites it 5× “1981 § 5 2 of the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Act shield governmental entities from statutory tort liability for wrongful discharge in retaliation for filing a compensation claim? (3) Does 51 O.S.Supp.1988 § 155(14) 3 of the Governmental Tort Claims Act immunize a…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 155(1) — 3 cases
McCracken v. City of Lawton, 648 P.2d 18 (Okla. 1982).
Randell v. Tulsa Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 889 P.2d 1264 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994).
Material Serv. Corp. v. Rogers Cnty. Commissioners, 136 P.3d 1063 (Okla. Civ. App. 2006).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 155(12) — 3 cases
Beach v. Oklahoma Dep't of Pub. Saf., 398 P.3d 1 (Okla. 2017).
Morain v. City of Norman, 863 P.2d 1246 (Okla. 1993).
Beach v. Oklahoma Dep't of Pub. Saf., 2017 OK 40 (Okla. 2017).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 155(13) — 2 cases
McCathern v. City of Oklahoma City, 95 P.3d 1090 (Okla. 2004).
Reynolds v. Union Pub. Schs., 1998 OK CIV APP 101 (Okla. Civ. App. 1998).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 155(14) — 11 cases
Childs v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma State Univ., 848 P.2d 571 (Okla. 1993). “The dispositive issue for review is whether the amended provisions of 51 O.S.Supp. 1988 § 155(14) of the Governmental Tort Claims Act [Tort Claims Act] 1 extended the State’s immunity to include its liability to persons, not then in the employ of the State of Oklahoma, who were…”
Jackson Cnty. Emergency Med. Serv. Dist. v. Kirkland, 2024 OK 4 (Okla. 2024). “¶32 In this regard, the GTCA provides in 51 O.S. 2021 §155 that: The state or a political subdivision shall not be liable if a loss or claim results from: .”
Huff v. State, 764 P.2d 183 (Okla. 1988).
Ingram v. State, 786 P.2d 77 (Okla. 1990).
Barrios v. Haskell Cnty. Pub. Facilities Auth., 432 P.3d 233 (Okla. 2018). “Provision, equipping, operation or maintenance of any prison, jail or correctional facility, or injuries resulting from the parole or escape of a prisoner or injuries by a prisoner to any other prisoner; provided, however, this provision shall not apply to claims from…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 155(15) — 9 cases
Robertson v. City of Jones, 832 P.2d 432 (Okla. Civ. App. 1991).
Teeter v. City of Edmond, 2004 OK 5 (Okla. 2004).
Ochoa Ex Rel. Hughes v. Taylor, 635 P.2d 604 (Okla. 1981).
Holt v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Dep't of Transp., 927 P.2d 57 (Okla. Civ. App. 1996).
Robinson v. City of Bartlesville Bd. of Educ., 700 P.2d 1013 (Okla. 1985).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 155(16) — 3 cases
Courtney v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Dep't of Pub. Saf., 722 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2013). “Recently, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held unconstitutional and declared void a bill which amended provisions of Okla. Stat. tit. 51 § 155. See Douglas v.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 155(18) — 1 case
Jones v. State ex rel. Off. of Juv. Affairs, 268 P.3d 72 (Okla. 2011).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 155(2) — 3 cases
White v. State ex rel. Harris, 122 P.3d 484 (Okla. Civ. App. 2005).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 155(20) — 5 cases
Curtis v. Bd. of Educ. of Sayre Pub. Schs., 914 P.2d 656 (Okla. 1995).
Brewer Ex Rel. Brewer v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 1, 848 P.2d 566 (Okla. 1993).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 155(21) — 1 case
Strock v. City of Lawton, 914 P.2d 1076 (Okla. Civ. App. 1996).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 155(22) — 1 case
Ingram v. State, 786 P.2d 77 (Okla. 1990).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 155(23) — 7 cases
Medina v. State, 871 P.2d 1379 (Okla. 1993). “, the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma certified the following question of state law to this Court: Does the dispensing of medicine to an inmate in a state penal institution by a state employee come within the exception provided by Okla.Stat.…”
Redding v. State, 882 P.2d 61 (Okla. 1994).
Nguyen v. State, 788 P.2d 962 (Okla. 1990). “Thirty carefully enumerated exemptions from liability are provided in 51 O.S.Supp. 1989, § 155. Subparagraph five is the discretionary function exemption.”
MASAD v. Weber, 2009 SD 80 (S.D. 2009).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 155(24) — 8 cases
Nguyen v. State, 788 P.2d 962 (Okla. 1990). “Thirty carefully enumerated exemptions from liability are provided in 51 O.S.Supp. 1989, § 155. Subparagraph five is the discretionary function exemption.”
Payne v. Kerns, 2020 OK 31 (Okla. 2020).
Moran v. City of Del City, 2003 OK 57 (Okla. 2003).
Harmon v. Cradduck, 286 P.3d 643 (Okla. 2012).
Prichard v. City of Oklahoma City, 1999 OK 5 (Okla. 1999). “Title 51 O.S.1991 § 155. 10 . Krokowski v. Henderson Nat'l Corp.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 155(25) — 8 cases
Barrios v. Haskell Cnty. Pub. Facilities Auth., 432 P.3d 233 (Okla. 2018). “Provision, equipping, operation or maintenance of any prison, jail or correctional facility, or injuries resulting from the parole or escape of a prisoner or injuries by a prisoner to any other prisoner; provided, however, this provision shall not apply to claims from…”
Howard Ex Rel. Payne v. Grady Cnty. Crim. Just. Auth., 394 P.3d 299 (Okla. Civ. App. 2016).
Taylor v. City of Bixby, 2018 OK CIV APP 18 (Okla. Civ. App. 2017).
Rowell v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of Muskogee Cnty., 485 P.3d 879 (Okla. Civ. App. 2020).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 155(27) — 1 case
— Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 155(28) — 4 cases
Nguyen v. State, 788 P.2d 962 (Okla. 1990). “Thirty carefully enumerated exemptions from liability are provided in 51 O.S.Supp. 1989, § 155. Subparagraph five is the discretionary function exemption.”
Redding v. State, 882 P.2d 61 (Okla. 1994).
Briggs v. Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Dep't of Human Servs., 472 F. Supp. 2d 1304 (W.D. Okla. 2007).
Briggs v. Okl. Ex Rel. Okl. Dept. of Human Serv., 472 F. Supp. 2d 1304 (W.D. Okla. 2007).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 155(29) — 1 case
Belletini v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp., 920 P.2d 1067 (Okla. Civ. App. 1996).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 155(3) — 1 case
— Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 155(35) — 1 case
— Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 155(4) — 17 cases
Smith v. City of Stillwater, 2014 OK 42 (Okla. 2014). “¶6 In response, Smith argued that pursuant to Gurich , the City was not immune to suit based on the protections of 51 O.S. §155. 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…”
Courtney v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Dep't of Pub. Saf., 722 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2013). “Recently, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held unconstitutional and declared void a bill which amended provisions of Okla. Stat. tit. 51 § 155. See Douglas v.”
Barrios v. Haskell Cnty. Pub. Facilities Auth., 432 P.3d 233 (Okla. 2018). “Provision, equipping, operation or maintenance of any prison, jail or correctional facility, or injuries resulting from the parole or escape of a prisoner or injuries by a prisoner to any other prisoner; provided, however, this provision shall not apply to claims from…”
Perry v. City of Norman, 2014 OK 119 (Okla. 2014).
Medina v. State, 871 P.2d 1379 (Okla. 1993). “, the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma certified the following question of state law to this Court: Does the dispensing of medicine to an inmate in a state penal institution by a state employee come within the exception provided by Okla.Stat.…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 155(5) — 28 cases
Nguyen v. State, 788 P.2d 962 (Okla. 1990). “Thirty carefully enumerated exemptions from liability are provided in 51 O.S.Supp. 1989, § 155. Subparagraph five is the discretionary function exemption.”
Gunn v. Consol. Rural Water & Sewer Dist. No. 1, 839 P.2d 1345 (Okla. 1992). “1981 § 5 2 of the Oklahoma Workers’ Compensation Act shield governmental entities from statutory tort liability for wrongful discharge in retaliation for filing a compensation claim? (3) Does 51 O.S.Supp.1988 § 155(14) 3 of the Governmental Tort Claims Act immunize a…”
Barrios v. Haskell Cnty. Pub. Facilities Auth., 432 P.3d 233 (Okla. 2018). “Provision, equipping, operation or maintenance of any prison, jail or correctional facility, or injuries resulting from the parole or escape of a prisoner or injuries by a prisoner to any other prisoner; provided, however, this provision shall not apply to claims from…”
Minie v. Hudson, 934 P.2d 1082 (Okla. 1997).
McLin v. Trimble, 795 P.2d 1035 (Okla. 1990).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 155(6) — 11 cases
Salazar v. City of Oklahoma City, 1999 OK 20 (Okla. 1999). “The exemptions, set forth in 51 O.S.1991 § 155 address circumstances where the state expressly retains its sovereign immunity/ The terms of § 155 provide that the state or a political subdivision shall not be liable if a loss or claim results from any one of thirty specified…”
Prichard v. City of Oklahoma City, 1999 OK 5 (Okla. 1999). “Title 51 O.S.1991 § 155. 10 . Krokowski v. Henderson Nat'l Corp.”
Barrios v. Haskell Cnty. Pub. Facilities Auth., 432 P.3d 233 (Okla. 2018). “Provision, equipping, operation or maintenance of any prison, jail or correctional facility, or injuries resulting from the parole or escape of a prisoner or injuries by a prisoner to any other prisoner; provided, however, this provision shall not apply to claims from…”
Schmidt v. Grady Cnty., Okl., 1997 OK 92 (Okla. 1997).
State v. Terrell, 588 S.W.2d 784 (Tex. 1979).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 155(7)(13) — 1 case
Reynolds v. Union Pub. Schs., 1998 OK CIV APP 101 (Okla. Civ. App. 1998).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 155(8) — 3 cases
Holt v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Dep't of Transp., 927 P.2d 57 (Okla. Civ. App. 1996).
Cruse v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 910 P.2d 998 (Okla. 1995).
Kluver v. City of Hinton, 924 P.2d 306 (Okla. Civ. App. 1996).
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.