SMITH v. CITY OF STILLWATER
2014 OK 42
| Okla. | 2014Background
- On Aug. 8, 2008 decedent (Kyle Smith) fled law enforcement on a motorcycle, crashed at a T‑intersection, and died.
- Smith (natural father/next of kin) sued the City of Stillwater and Payne County for wrongful death alleging negligent pursuit, failure to follow pursuit policies, and negligent training/supervision.
- Payne County moved to dismiss under the Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA) immunity provisions (51 O.S. § 155(4)–(5)); trial court granted dismissal; City later moved for summary judgment on duty grounds and GTCA immunity.
- After State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety v. Gurich (2010) (holding GTCA exemptions don’t grant blanket immunity for negligent law‑enforcement performance in pursuits), Smith sought reconsideration; trial court refused and dismissed County; Court of Civil Appeals reversed that refusal but upheld summary judgment for the City.
- Oklahoma Supreme Court held: (1) GTCA § 155 does not categorically shield political subdivisions for negligent implementation of pursuit policy (trial court erred to dismiss County), but (2) law‑enforcement officers owe no duty of care to the fleeing suspect, so summary judgment for the City (and final disposition) was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 51 O.S. § 155 immunizes political subdivisions for officer conduct in police pursuits | Smith: Gurich controls; negligent implementation of policy is actionable; §155 does not bar suit | County: §155(4)–(5) exemptions (policy/planning/discretion) bar claims based on pursuit policy, training, supervision | Held: §155 does not provide blanket immunity for negligent daily implementation of law‑enforcement policy; trial court erred to dismiss County on that basis |
| Whether officers owe a duty of care to the fleeing suspect under 47 O.S. § 11‑106 | Smith: §11‑106(E) (duty to drive with due regard for safety of "all persons") creates a duty to fleeing suspect | City: Gurich recognized duty to bystanders only; statute limits liability and does not impose duty to fleeing wrongdoer; public policy disfavors extending duty | Held: Officers engaged in pursuits do not owe a duty of care to the fleeing suspect; no negligence liability to suspect as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Dept. of Public Safety v. Gurich, 238 P.3d 1 (Okla. 2010) (GTCA §155 does not grant blanket immunity for negligent execution of law‑enforcement duties in pursuits)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (police may end a dangerous high‑speed chase even if that places the fleeing motorist at risk; distinguishes interests of bystanders vs. suspect)
- City of Winder v. McDougald, 583 S.E.2d 879 (Ga. 2003) (analogous statute interpreted not to create duty to fleeing suspect)
- Robinson v. City of Detroit, 613 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. 2000) (no duty owed to wrongdoer/fleeing driver under similar statute)
- Torrie v. Weber County, 309 P.3d 216 (Utah 2013) (contrasting view: statute's plain language created duty to fleeing suspects)
- Salazar v. City of Oklahoma City, 976 P.2d 1056 (Okla. 1999) (negligent performance of law‑enforcement function not shielded by GTCA immunity)