Moreover, that decision was strictly based on the facts of the case. With respect to City of Shawnee v. Faulkner, 205 Okla. 647, 240 P.2d 100 (1952), it is true that one of the four points in "Syllabus by the Court" states:"Where a city maintains a boat dock at its lake for the convenience of boat owners, and permits the general public to go upon the dock, it is the duty of the city to use reasonable care to maintain the premises in reasonably safe condition.

Appellants argue that this immunity protects one class (electric utilities) against another class (the public) without sufficient justification. It is a general rule of law that a plaintiff responsible for a violation of law usually cannot recover damages where such violation contributed as a proximate cause to the injury of which he complains. City of Shawnee v. Faulkner, 205 Okla. 647, 240 P.2d 100 (1952). The settled rule is that violation of a city ordinance constitutes negligence per se where the other elements of actionable negligence are present. Foster v. Harding, Okla., 426 P.2d 355 (1967).

The operation of a dock or pier with the charge of a fee or toll for wharfage has been held to be a proprietary function. Leemon v. South Jersey Port Commission, 145 F. Supp. 828 ( D.N.J. 1956); City of Orange, Tex. v.Lacoste, Inc., 210 F.2d 939 (5 Cir. 1954); City ofShawnee v. Faulkner, 205 Okla. 647, 240 P.2d 100 ( Sup.Ct. 1952); Heftiman v. Lake City, 225 Minn. 117, 30 N.W.2d 18 ( Sup. Ct. 1947); 63 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 911. The activity of the municipality, therefore, could logically be classified as either proprietary or governmental by applying classical tests under the foregoing authorities.