SEPTEMBER 2025 | 23 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. Underlying this reasoning is the court’s tacit adoption of McGhee, with which it draws a bright-line test for “scope of employment” as whether the public employee’s conduct involved the abuse of lawfully vested authority or was a usurpation of authority. In either event, if the facts can support an inference in either direction, the decision is one for the jury, which will not likely be disturbed on appeal. CONCLUSION Claims against officers and employing agencies for excessive use of force continue to grow in Oklahoma as well as across the United States. Whether this trend reflects the reality of modern policing or an increase in the success of such claims with juries, the issue of sovereign immunity under the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act will continue to be relevant. Although Oklahoma law provides a broad avenue for plaintiffs to seek accountability, it is important for practitioners to understand that there are at least some limits at play. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Pete G. Serrata III is of counsel with the law firm of Derryberry & Naifeh LLP in Oklahoma City. He practices in the areas of insurance coverage litigation, administrative law, appellate advocacy and civil mediation. ENDNOTES 1. Russell-Locke Super-Service Inc. v. Vaughn, 170 Okla. 377 (1935). 2. Rodebush v. Oklahoma Nursing Homes, Ltd., 1993 OK 160, ¶16, 867 P.2d 1241, 1246 (quoting Okla. Stat. Tit. 23 §9 (1991)). 3. Okla. Stat. Tit. 51 §153(a). 4. Okla. Stat. Tit. 51 §153(b). 5. Okla. Stat. Tit. 51 §152(12). 6. DeCorte v. Robinson, 1998 OK 87, 969 P.2d 358. 7. Vanderpool v. State, 1983 OK 82, ¶7, 672 P.2d 1153, 1154 (dicta discussing the origin of sovereign immunity) (superseded by statute). 8. Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999). 9. Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 81, at 487-88 (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961) (1788). 10. U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 at 218 (1882). 11. Id. at 220. 12. Id. 13. Id. 14. 28 U.S.C. §1346(b). 15. Hershel v. University Hospital Foundation, 1980 OK 60, 610 P.2d 237 (superseded by statute). 16. Id. 17. Id. 18. Vanderpool v. State, supra n. 10 at ¶10. 19. The Governmental Tort Claims Act, ch. 226, §3, 1984 O.S.L. 811, 813 (codified at 51 O.S.Supp.1984 §152.1). 20. Barrios v. Haskell Cnty. Pub. Facilities Auth., 2018 OK 90, 432 P.3d 233, 237. 21. Okla. Stat. Tit. 51 §152.1(B). 22. Okla. Stat. Tit. 51 §153. 23. See Martin v. Johnson, 1998 OK 127, ¶28, 975 P.2d 889, 895. 24. Okla. Stat. Tit. 51 §152(12). 25. Parker v. City of Midwest City, 1993 OK 29, ¶¶14, 850 P.2d 1065, 1068. 26. Tuffy’s Inc. v. City of Oklahoma City, 2009 OK 4, ¶20, 212 P.3d 1158, 1167. 27. Speight v. Presley, 2008 OK 99, ¶20, 203 P.3d 173, 179. 28. Id. (holding that designating an employee in their official capacity as a named defendant for this type of claim is improper); see also Okla. Stat. Tit. 51 §163(C). 29. Tuffy’s Inc. v. City of Oklahoma City, supra at n. 25, at ¶8. 30. Cooper v. Millwood Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 37, 1994 OK CIV APP 114, 887 P.2d 1370. 31. Rodebush v. Oklahoma Nursing Homes, Ltd., supra at n. 2, ¶22. 32. DeCorte v. Robinson, 1998 OK 87, ¶2, 969 P.2d 358, 360. 33. Id. at ¶3. 34. Id. at ¶4. 35. Id. at ¶7. 36. Holman By and Through Holman v. Wheeler, 1983 OK 72 at ¶1, 677 P.2d 645 (superseded by statute). 37. Id. at ¶4. 38. Id. at ¶7. 39. Id. at ¶15. 40. Parker v. City of Midwest City, 1993 OK 29 at ¶2. 41. Id. at ¶3. 42. Id. at ¶4. 43. Id. at ¶12. 44. Nail v. City of Henryetta, supra at n. 24, at ¶2. 45. Id. at ¶3. 46. Id. 47. Id. 48. Id. at ¶4. 49. Id. at ¶5. 50. Id. 51. Id at ¶12. 52. Id. 53. Id. at ¶13. 54. McGhee v. Volusia County, 679 So.2d 729 at 730 (Fla. 1996). 55. Id. 56. Id. 57. Id. at 731. 58. Hennagan v. Dept. of Safety and Motor Veh., 467 So.2d 748 (Fla. 1st DCA, 1985). 59. Id. at 731. 60. Id. at 732 (quoting Hennegan v. Dept. of Hghwy Safety and Motor Veh. 467 So.2d 748 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)). 61. Id. at 733. 62. DeCorte v. Robinson, supra at n. 31, at ¶14. 63. Id. at ¶11. 64. Id. at ¶9 (citing Eversole v. Okla. Hosp. Founders Ass’n, 1991 OK 80, 818 P.2d 456). 65. Id. at ¶15.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==