Counties; creating the Citizen Access to County Facilities Act; exempting counties from certain liability. Effective date.
SB1819 creates the “Citizen Access to County Facilities Act” and establishes a liability framework for activities conducted at county-owned or county-maintained facilities, including parks, senior centers, barns, and fairgrounds. The bill defines key terms such as “county,” “county facilities,” “participant,” and “inherent risks of an activity using county facilities,” and then limits county liability for injuries, death, or losses that result solely from those inherent risks. It also requires counties to plead assumption of risk as an affirmative defense in related lawsuits.
The bill preserves county liability in two main situations: if a county acts with willful or wanton disregard for participant safety, or if it knows or should know about a dangerous condition and fails to warn participants. In addition, counties must post warning signs at entrances and activity sites and include the warning language in written contracts for facility use. If a county fails to provide the required warnings, it loses the immunity protections created by the bill. The measure also states that Oklahomans’ rights to use county facilities may not be prohibited by counties, though activities must still comply with law, health and safety rules, and zoning requirements.
SB1819 would add new provisions to Title 19 of the Oklahoma Statutes, supplementing the Governmental Tort Claims Act with specific immunity for counties regarding injuries tied to the inherent risks of activities at county facilities. It would affect counties, county officers, county employees, participants in county-sponsored or county-permitted activities, and potentially county insurers and event organizers. The bill also imposes a mandatory warning-sign and contract-notice requirement as a condition of claiming immunity, and it expressly limits county authority to bar public use of county facilities, subject to existing legal, health, safety, and zoning constraints.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge sentiment directly. Based on the bill’s structure, the measure appears designed to be protective of counties by reducing tort exposure while also preserving public access to county facilities. The overall tone of the bill is precautionary and liability-focused rather than expansive or regulatory, suggesting a policy preference for risk allocation and notice to participants.
The main points of contention likely center on the balance between county immunity and participant protection. Supporters would likely favor the bill for limiting lawsuits and clarifying that participants assume ordinary risks associated with county facilities, while opponents may object that the immunity is broad and could reduce incentives for counties to maintain safe facilities. Another likely issue is the warning-sign requirement: counties must comply exactly to receive immunity, which may be viewed as a reasonable safeguard by some and an administrative burden by others. The provision stating that counties may not prohibit Oklahomans from using county facilities could also raise questions about local control and how counties manage access, scheduling, and safety.