LOPEZ v. BD. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CHEROKEE COUNTY
2016 OK CIV APP 69
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2016Background
- On June 26, 2011 Teresa Lopez, a motorcycle passenger, was seriously injured when the motorcycle, turning east from Road 443, was struck by a truck at the intersection of County Road 443 and County Road 640.
- Lopez sued the motorcycle driver, the truck driver, and the Board of County Commissioners of Cherokee County, alleging the County negligently failed to maintain vegetation and traffic-warning measures, obstructing drivers’ views.
- Cherokee County moved for summary judgment asserting immunity under multiple Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA) exemptions and arguing it had no responsibility for the stop sign (Mayes County did).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Board based on GTCA exemptions and dismissed the Board; Lopez appealed.
- The Court of Civil Appeals reviewed de novo and examined whether factual disputes or statutory exemptions bar Lopez’s claims regarding overgrown vegetation and whether the Board had any duty regarding the stop sign.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GTCA §155(4) (failure to adopt/enforce a law) shields County for vegetation outside right-of-way | Lopez contends County negligently maintained the intersection and that obstructing vegetation (including within ROW) caused the crash | County says it only mows within 16½-foot statutory ROW and is immune for failing to adopt a policy requiring mowing beyond ROW or at specified heights | Denied as a basis for summary judgment: factual disputes exist whether obstructing vegetation extended into County ROW and County did not prove entitlement to immunity under §155(4) |
| Whether GTCA §155(5) (discretionary function) bars liability for mowing/maintenance decisions | Lopez says mowing and vegetation maintenance are operational duties; County failed to perform them non-negligently | County frames mowing and decisions about whether/when to mow as discretionary policy-level acts immune from suit | Rejected: County previously undertook mowing and operationally performs mowing; discretion ends once work is undertaken, so §155(5) does not apply |
| Whether GTCA §155(10) (natural conditions) applies to vegetation growth | Lopez argues County had control and responsibility over ROW vegetation | County claims vegetation growth is a natural condition and thus exempt | Rejected: "natural conditions" applies to conditions beyond governmental control; here County had responsibility to mow, so §155(10) does not apply |
| Whether GTCA §155(13) (inspection functions) precludes negligence claim for failure to inspect/maintain vegetation | Lopez asserts claim is negligent maintenance, not mere failure to inspect | County contends failure to inspect/monitor is an inspection-function exempt under §155(13) | Rejected: §155(13) covers specific governmental inspection powers, not routine maintenance failures; summary judgment on this ground improper |
| Whether County had duty to place/maintain the stop sign at intersection | Lopez points to testimony suggesting County was concerned about public safety and checked that a stop sign existed | County produced undisputed evidence that Road 443 is boundary and Mayes County placed/maintains the stop signs; Cherokee had no responsibility | Affirmed: No genuine issue—Mayes County was responsible; summary judgment for County proper on sign issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Oral Roberts Univ., 732 P.2d 450 (Okla. 1986) (municipal immunity under failure-to-adopt-or-enforce provision where vegetation on private property created obstruction; separate liability may exist for negligent maintenance of land under municipal control)
- Walker v. City of Moore, 837 P.2d 876 (Okla. 1992) (distinguishes discretionary planning decisions from ministerial maintenance duties; maintenance can give rise to liability)
- Moran v. City of Del City, 77 P.3d 588 (Okla. 2003) (§155(13) inspection-power exemption does not subsume ordinary maintenance/notice-based negligence claims)
- Hargrave v. Canadian Valley Elec. Coop., 792 P.2d 50 (Okla. 1990) (permitting inference that obstructing foliage may be within landowner/authority control despite proximity to private property)
- Gilmore v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Logan Cnty., 147 P.3d 296 (Okla. Civ. App. 2006) (initial policy decisions are discretionary; subsequent operational maintenance is ministerial)
- Patterson v. Beall, 19 P.3d 839 (Okla. 2000) (material facts not controverted must still be supported by admissible evidence for summary judgment)
- U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Alexander, 280 P.3d 936 (Okla. 2012) (summary judgment de novo standard)
Disposition: Affirmed in part (stop sign issue), reversed in part (vegetation/GTCA exemptions) and remanded for further proceedings on negligence/maintenance issues.