 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Robertson v. City of Jones12/24/1991
Rehearing Denied January 21, 1992.
Certiorari Denied June 29, 1992.
PATSY GENE ROBERTSON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE CITY OF JONES, OKLAHOMA, APPELLEE, AND THE CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF OKLAHOMA, THE ESTATE OF DR. MOORMAN PROSSER, AND MR. DWAYNE FESLER, DEFENDANTS.
R. Thomas Beadles, Beadles and Johnson, Oklahoma City, for appellant.
Robert S. Laferrandre, Gerald P. Green, Pierce Couch Hendrickson Johnston & Baysinger, Oklahoma City, for appellee.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The opinion of the court was delivered by: MEANS, Presiding Judge.
Plaintiff appeals from a grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of Jones, in this action for damages for personal injury . The trial court found that Defendant City was entitled to immunity under the Governmental Tort Claims Act. Having reviewed the record and applicable law, we affirm.
Plaintiff was travelling southbound on North Choctaw Road, in Oklahoma County, at 1:00 a.m. on September 19, 1988, when she failed to negotiate an unmarked, ninety-degree turn. The result was a single car accident in which Plaintiff sustained injuries. The conditions at the time of the accident were dark and rainy. The City of Jones never posted any warning signs at the corner which Plaintiff failed to negotiate.
Plaintiff alleges that the nature and design of the curve, combined with the lack of any warning signs, constituted a special defect in the roadway. Therefore, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant City was negligent in failing to erect warning signs. On February 16, 1990, the trial court granted summary judgment to Defendant finding that Plaintiff's action was barred by 51 O.S.Supp. 1987 § 155 (15).
The State of Oklahoma and its political subdivisions are immune from liability for torts pursuant to the Governmental Tort Claims Act. 51 O.S.Supp. 1987 § 152.1 (A). This immunity is waived "only to the extent and in the manner provided in this act."
The exceptions to liability are generally found in section 155 and the particular exception upon which the trial court relied in the case at bar is found at subpart 15.
The state or a political subdivision shall not be liable if a loss or claim results from:
. . . .
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 when such failure, alteration or change is the result of a discretionary act of the state or political subdivision. 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. . . .
Plaintiff argues that the final sentence of section 155(15) does not exempt City from liability if it f
Page 1 2 3 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|