Oklahoma House Bill HB2934

Oklahoma 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/2/26
• Refer: 2/3/26

Caption

Torts; prohibiting civil liability under specified circumstances; exception; emergency.

Summary

HB2934 creates a new section of Oklahoma law in Title 76 that limits civil liability for bodily injury or property damage caused by the criminal act of another. The bill defines key terms such as “bodily injury,” “criminal act of another,” and “property damage,” and then provides that no person or entity may be held civilly liable under any theory of law or equity for harm arising from another person’s criminal conduct, including conduct by an employee or agent, unless the person or entity has first been convicted as a criminal accomplice in that act. The immunity applies even if the person who committed the criminal act is never apprehended, prosecuted, or convicted. The bill also states that the protection extends to simple negligence claims, but not to willful, wanton, malicious, or grossly negligent conduct. An emergency clause would make the measure effective immediately upon passage and approval.

Impact

HB2934 would significantly narrow civil tort exposure in Oklahoma for individuals and entities sued over injuries or property damage caused by third-party criminal acts. It would add a new statutory immunity in Title 76, Section 16.2, and would likely affect premises liability, negligent security, employer liability, and other civil claims where plaintiffs seek damages tied to criminal conduct by someone else. The bill preserves liability only in the narrow circumstance where the defendant has been convicted as a criminal accomplice, and it expressly excludes immunity for more serious forms of misconduct such as gross negligence or intentional wrongdoing.

Sentiment

Based on the available record, the bill appears to have been introduced and referred to the House Civil Judiciary Committee without recorded debate, votes, or amendments in the provided materials. The caption and text suggest a policy goal of protecting persons and businesses from civil suits arising from crimes committed by others, which may appeal to supporters concerned about limiting tort liability. At the same time, the bill’s broad immunity language and its effect on victims’ ability to recover damages could draw concern from plaintiffs’ advocates and those focused on accountability.

Contention

The main point of contention is the breadth of the immunity. Supporters are likely to favor shielding property owners, employers, and other entities from liability when a third party commits a crime, especially where the defendant did not directly commit the harmful act. Opponents may argue that the bill goes too far by barring claims even when the criminal actor is never caught or convicted, and by extending immunity to simple negligence claims. The exception for willful, wanton, malicious, or grossly negligent conduct may be seen as an important limit, but the requirement of a prior criminal-accomplice conviction sets a very high bar for civil recovery.