Robinson v. City of Bartlesville Bd. of Educ.
Citation | 1985 OK 39,700 P.2d 1013 |
Decision Date | 14 May 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 62551,62551 |
Parties | 25 Ed. Law Rep. 903, 1985 OK 39 Florence ROBINSON, an individual, Appellant, v. CITY OF BARTLESVILLE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellee. |
Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
Christopher W. Venters, Oklahoma City, for appellant.
Larry G. Taylor, Feldman, Hall, Franden, Woodard & Harris, Tulsa, for appellee.
After attending her granddaughter's graduation from Bartlesville High School, Mrs. Robinson fell between two parked cars in the school parking lot at about 10:30 P.M. on May 25, 1983. She sued the Board of Education, alleging that her broken ankle and other permanent injuries were sustained when she stepped upon a water drain grill which was sunken several inches below the asphalt surface. She claimed the drain was installed and maintained in such an improper manner as to create an unreasonable risk of injury. She further alleged the Board had a duty to provide some sort of warning (painting or lighting, e.g.) of its existence.
The Board demurred generally, and the trial court sustained the demurrer. Plaintiff elected to stand on her petition as sufficient, and the case was dismissed. Plaintiff appeals.
The Board defends the trial judge's ruling on two theories:
(1) The building and maintenance of parking lots is a discretionary function of the school district, and a political subdivision is not liable for its performance or non-performance of discretionary acts, citing 51 O.S.1984 § 155(5). 1
(2) The Board has no liability for failure to place signs or warning devices when such failure is the result of a discretionary act of the Board, citing 51 O.S.1984 § 155(15). 2
and then says:
"The signs, signals and warning devices referred to herein are those used in connection with hazards normally connected with the use of roadways and public ways...."
"Way" is defined as "A passage, path, road or street". 3 A school parking lot is not a public way, and we must limit our concern to whether subsection 5 insulates the School Board by reason of discretion.
We have previously held that allegations of failure to install and maintain traffic control devices, failure to provide patrol service, and failure to light the streets are allegations of failure to perform discretionary functions. 4 It is clear that if the installation and maintenance of the sunken drain in the school parking lot was a discretionary function of the School Board, then there can be no liability, and the demurrer was correctly sustained.
But there is a distinction to be drawn between acts of a municipal body that are discretionary and acts that are ministerial or operational. 5 In Harrigan v. City of Reno 6 the plaintiff was injured when she was blown by a gust of wind from a city parking lot with a drop-off of several feet with no guardrail. The City, with a comparable tort-claims act, argued that failure to install a guardrail was a matter of discretion, for which the City had immunity. The Court, however, held:
Cases from other jurisdictions consistently hold that it is discretionary with the municipality whether or not to order and construct the public improvement, and hence it will not be held liable for its act or failure to act. 9 The cases further hold that a municipality acts ministerially (or operationally) in constructing, maintaining and repairing public improvements, and hence may be liable for injuries caused by negligence. 10
It has further been held that as an exception to the general rule of liability, discretionary immunity must be narrowly construed. 11
In U.S. v. Hunsucker 12 the plaintiff claimed damage by reason of the construction of neighboring sewage facilities. The government raised discretion as a defense. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed recovery, quoting with approval from American Exchange Bank v. U.S., 13 where the plaintiff complained of failure to install a handrail on the steps of the post office building:
"Undoubtedly there was an exercise of discretion in deciding whether and where a post office building should be located in Madison, Wisconsin, but whether a handrail should be installed as a safety measure on wide stone steps involves action at the operational level and would seem to involve no more discretion than fixing a sidewalk on post office grounds that might be in need of repair." 14
In Ingham v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. 15 plaintiff charged negligence in FAA procedures for incoming aircraft. The U.S. claimed its system was an exercise of discretion, and thus immune from tort claims. The Court said:
This argument also lacks merit. When the government decided to establish and operate an air traffic control system, that policy decision was the exercise of discretion at the planning level, and could not serve as the basis of liability. (cite omitted) But once having made that decision, the government's employees were required thereafter to act in a reasonable manner. A failure to do so rendered the government liable for the omission or commission. (cites omitted) Thus, it has been decided that the government can be held liable for the negligence of its air traffic controllers. (Cites omitted) '[D]iscretion was exercised when it was decided to operate the tower, but the tower personnel had no discretion to operate it negligently.' 16
Action by a municipality is discretionary when it is the result of judgment. The municipality has a discretion to do or not to do a public work or improvement; the duty is, therefore, discretionary up to the time that it is determined to do the work or improvement. After the work is ordered and involves merely the execution of a set task, nothing remains for discretion. The duty of the municipality is then ministerial, that is to say operational, and requires the municipality to do the work with reasonable care and in a non-negligent manner.
Where discretion ends and actionable negligence begins cannot be defined without reference to the factual situation in which the question of discretionary v. ministerial has arisen. 17
In this case we hold that the construction and maintenance of the high school parking lot in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wilhelm v. Gray
......"This statute was amended in 1984, however, the changes are not relevant in this case.See also, Robinson v. City of Bartlesville Bd. of Educ., 700 P.2d 1013-17 (Okla.1985).27 Title 51 O.S.1981 § 162 provides:"A. A political subdivision, subject to procedure requirements imposed by statut......
-
Harwood v. Ardagh Grp.
...regarding safety or maintenance of the improvement are operational decisions which are actionable. Robinson v. City of Bartlesville Bd. of Educ. , 1985 OK 39, 700 P.2d 1013 ; Walker v. City of Moore , 1992 OK 73, 837 P.2d 876.22 Hesser v. Central National Bank & Trust Co., of Enid , 1998 OK......
-
United States v. Woodard
...property, rather than a public way, and the government does not disagree with this characterization. See Robinson v. City of Bartlesville Bd. of Educ. , 700 P.2d 1013, 1015 (Okla. 1985) (stating that a "school parking lot is not a public way" because a " ‘way’ is defined as ‘[a] passage, pa......
-
Nation v. Piedmont Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 22, Case No. CIV-18-1090-R
...allegations, it was required "to do the work with reasonable care and in a non-negligent manner." Robinson v. City of Bartlesville Bd. of Educ., 700 P.2d 1013, 1017 (Okla.1985). Therefore, District is not immune from Plaintiffs' claims . . . which allege that District failed to prevent the ......