Opinion ID: 1428349
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: sovereign immunity, official immunity, and the open courts clause of the utah constitution

Text: ¶ 33 The statutory provision that the Court of Appeals held barred Day's action against the State was in effect for only one year and six days. Section 63-30-7 of the Governmental Immunity Act, as it read just prior to the amendment that gave rise to this case, waived immunity under certain conditions if the operator of an emergency vehicle exceeded the speed limit and thereby endangered life or property or did not operate his vehicle with regard for the safety of all persons or arbitrarily exercised the privileges granted. Section 63-30-7 (1989) stated: Immunity from suit of all governmental agencies is waived for injury resulting from the negligent operation by any employee of a motor vehicle or other equipment during the performance of his duties, within the scope of employment, or under color of authority; provided, however, that this section shall not apply to the operation of emergency vehicles as defined by law and while being driven in accordance with the requirements of Section 41-6-14. (Emphasis added.) Section 41-6-14 (1988) of the Motor Vehicle Code, referred to in section 63-30-7 above, exempted the operator of an authorized emergency vehicle from speed limits,  if the operator does not endanger life or property,  id. § 41-6-14(2)(c) (emphasis added), and from certain other traffic regulations. Subsection 3(a) of section 41-6-14 stated:  The privileges under this section do not relieve the operator of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to operate the vehicle with regard for the safety of all persons, or protect the operator from the consequences of an arbitrary exercise of the privileges.  (Emphasis added.) ¶ 34 Effective April 23, 1990, the Legislature amended section 63-30-7 by adding subsection (2)(a) to provide a limited immunity for a very narrow type of emergency vehicle operation. However, the amendment maintained the general waiver of immunity if an emergency vehicle was not operated in compliance with section 41-6-14. The amended section read as follows: (1)(a) Immunity from suit of all governmental entities is waived for injury resulting from the negligent operation by any employee of a motor vehicle or other equipment during the performance of his duties, within the scope of employment, or under color of authority. (b) This subsection does not apply to the operation of emergency vehicles as defined by law and while being driven in accordance with the requirements of Section 41-6-14. (2)(a) All governmental entities employing peace officers retain and do not waive immunity from liability for civil damages for personal injury or death or for damage to property resulting from the collision of a vehicle being operated by an actual or suspected violator of the law who is being, has been, or believes he is being or has been pursued by a peace officer employed by the governmental entity in a motor vehicle. Utah Code Ann. § 63-10-7 (Supp.1990). Subsection (2)(a) was in effect for six days more than a year. It was repealed effective April 29, 1991, six weeks after the collision between Floyd and the Days, when the Legislature repealed all of section 63-30-7, see 1991 Utah Laws ch. 76, § 10, and in lieu thereof added subsection 15 to section 63-30-10, the general waiver of governmental immunity for injury caused by an act or omission of a government employee, with a list of exceptions to the waiver. See id. ch. 76, § 4. Subsection 15 of § 63-30-10 barred an action for the negligent operation of an emergency vehicle while being driven in accordance with the requirements of Section 41-6-14.  Utah Code Ann. § 63-30-10(15) (Supp.1991) (emphasis added). Thus, the Legislature abolished the narrow immunity created by subsection (2)(a) and reestablished the law as it had existed from the time the Governmental Immunity Act was first established. ¶ 35 The Court of Appeals ruled that subsection (2)(a) of section 63-30-7 was constitutional and barred Mrs. Day's claims. See Day v. State, 882 P.2d 1150, 1159 (Utah Ct.App.1994). The consequence of that ruling, together with the immunity conferred on government employees in 1983 by enactment of section 63-30-4(3)(a) and (b) of the Governmental Immunity Act for negligent and reckless acts, [8] was to leave Mrs. Day with no remedy at all against the State or its employees. The rationale for the Court of Appeals' opinion that section 63-30-7(2)(a) was constitutional was that the common law doctrine of governmental immunity as it had developed to the time of Utah's statehood[ ] precluded a cause of action in favor of one injured by a high-speed police pursuit of a fleeing suspect. Day, 882 P.2d at 1159. In our view, the Court of Appeals erred in two respects. First, the rights protected by Article I, section 11 are not defined by those causes of action that existed in 1896. Second, the law, both in Utah and in other states, has long recognized the principle that negligence of law enforcement officers in apprehending a fleeing misdemeanant may be actionable by one injured as a result of the negligence. We have established that point above. ¶ 36 The proposition that Article I, section 11 should be construed to protect only those rights and remedies that were recognized under the common law at the time of statehood is not supported by Berry v. Beech Aircraft, 717 P.2d 670 (Utah 1985), or by its progeny with one exception, or by the case law preceding Berry. Indeed, the proposition that section 11 protects only those rights and remedies that existed at the time of statehood conflicts with the tenor and underlying purpose of Article I, section 11. To hold that Article I, section 11 rights are defined by the state of the law at the time of statehood would be to ossify the law pertaining to remedies designed to protect the constitutionally protected values of person, property [and] reputation. In addition, it would improperly interfere with legislative prerogatives necessary to make the law responsive to the exigencies of changing conditions. The plain language of section 11 provides no basis for concluding that those rights are time-bound. Article I, section 11 states in pertinent part: All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done to him in his person, property or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, which shall be administered without denial or unnecessary delay.... ¶ 37 The proposition that the rights protected by this provision are defined by the law as it existed in 1896 has been rejected in a number of opinions of this Court, both expressly and implicitly, in part because it has no textual basis, would tend to freeze the law at a particular point in time and thereby subvert the normal and necessary evolution of the law as times change, and would otherwise improperly interfere with legislative prerogatives. Berry made explicit that a person's right to a remedy for an injury to person, property, or reputation by due course of law is not determined by whether the common law recognized the particular cause of action in 1896: [9] [N]either the due process nor the open courts provision constitutionalizes the common law or otherwise freezes the law governing private rights and remedies as of the time of statehood. It is, in fact, one of the important functions of the Legislature to change and modify the law that governs relations between individuals as society evolves and conditions require. Id. at 676 (citation and footnote omitted). In Cruz v. Wright, 765 P.2d 869 (Utah 1988), Justice Zimmerman wrote for the Court: Nowhere in this state's jurisprudence is it suggested that article I, section 11 flatly prohibits the legislature from altering or even abolishing certain rights which existed at common law. See Berry ex rel. Berry v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 717 P.2d 670, 676, 680 (Utah 1985).... In fact, in Berry, we specifically stated that the legislature may eliminate or abrogate a cause of action entirely if there is sufficient reason and the elimination or abrogation is not an arbitrary or unreasonable means [of] achieving the objective. 717 P.2d at 680. Id. at 871. This Court has sounded the same theme in numerous other opinions. See DeBry v. Noble, 889 P.2d 428, 435-36 (Utah 1995); Horton v. Goldminer's Daughter, 785 P.2d 1087, 1090 (Utah 1989); Sun Valley Water Beds v. Herm Hughes & Son, Inc., 782 P.2d 188, 191 (Utah 1989); see also Paxton R. Guymon, Note, Utah Prison Physicians: Can They Commit Malpractice With Impunity or Does Their Official Immunity Violate the Open Courts Clause?, 1997 Utah L.Rev. 873, 882, 897-900. [10] More recently, Justice Howe, writing for a unanimous court in Hirpa v. IHC Hospitals, 948 P.2d 785, 792 (Utah 1997), sustained the constitutionality of the Utah Good Samaritan Act against an Article I, section 11 challenge: This provision, as we have interpreted it, imposes a substantive limitation on the legislature's ability to eliminate or unduly restrict causes of action seeking relief for injury to person, property, or reputation. Berry v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 717 P.2d 670, 676 (Utah 1985). Despite the importance of this function, the rights of individuals protected by the open courts provision must be balanced against the legislature's need to enact laws to meet changing societal needs. Thus, the rights protected by the open courts provision are not always paramount, id. at 677, and the Legislature has great latitude in defining, changing, and modernizing the law, and in doing so may create new rules of law and abrogate old ones. Id. at 676. This is so because [i]t is, in fact, one of the important functions of the Legislature to change and modify the law that governs relations between individuals as society evolves and conditions require. Id. Thus, we will declare a statute violative of the open courts provision only if it is unreasonable and arbitrary and will not further the statutory objectives. Id. at 681. ¶ 38 The determination of whether a person who is injured in person, property, or reputation has been denied a remedy by due course of law should be decided by reference to the general law of rights and remedies at the time that the Legislature abrogates a remedy. Then Chief Justice Hall, writing for a unanimous Court in Sun Valley Water Beds, 782 P.2d at 191, addressed that precise issue in stating that the Legislature does not have unbridled power to deny to contemporary plaintiffs their existing common law rights and remedies.  (Emphasis added.) In Masich v. United States Smelting, Refining & Mining Co., 113 Utah 101, 191 P.2d 612 (1948), the plaintiff asserted the Legislature had unconstitutionally abrogated his common law action for damages that existed at the time of the lawsuit by enacting the exclusive remedy provision of the Occupational Disease Act. The Court sustained the constitutionality of the abrogation of a plaintiff's common law course of action, but the decision was not concerned at all with the causes of action the plaintiff had as of 1896. See id. at 624-25. The Court was concerned only with whether the remedies provided under the Act were reasonable alternatives to the common law remedies that the Act displaced. ¶ 39 The remedies unconstitutionally abrogated by the statute of repose in Berry were remedies based on the existing body of rights and remedies then available generally to persons injured in their person, property or reputation. The Court in Berry focused only on the abrogation of those legal remedies that were generally available at the time of the lawsuit for the protection of person and property. See 717 P.2d at 681-83. That was also the focus of the Court's analysis in Craftsman Builder's Supply, Inc. v. Butler Mfg. Co., 974 P.2d 1194 (1999), Horton v. Goldminer's Daughter, 785 P.2d 1087 (Utah 1989), and Sun Valley Water Beds v. Herm Hughes & Son, 782 P.2d 188 (Utah 1989). Indeed, some of the remedies abrogated in Craftsman, Horton, Sun Valley, and Berry did not even exist in 1896. See Horton, 785 P.2d at 1088-90. Accord, e.g., Hazine v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 176 Ariz. 340, 861 P.2d 625, 629 (1993); Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, 152 Ariz. 9, 730 P.2d 186, 194-95 (1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1029, 107 S.Ct. 1954, 95 L.Ed.2d 527 (1987); Kluger v. White, 281 So.2d 1, 4 (Fla.1973); Perkins v. Northeastern Log Homes, 808 S.W.2d 809, 816 (Ky.1991); Nat'l Ref. Co. v. Seehorn, 344 Mo. 547, 127 S.W.2d 418, 424 (1939). The general precept was stated more recently in DeBry v. Noble, 889 P.2d 428 (Utah 1995): The fundamental interests of life, liberty, and property, as protected by the due process clause and of person, property and reputation as protected by article I, section 11 were to be protected as societal and jurisprudential concepts of those terms evolved. For the law to freeze the meaning of those clauses as of one point in time would be to deny the essential meaning and purpose that was built into those clauses by the broad, expansive language that the Constitution uses. 889 P.2d at 435. ¶ 40 The Legislature does, of course, have the power to abrogate such remedies. However, that power is not absolute. Under the test stated in Berry, an abrogation of remedies must meet the following standards: First, section 11 is satisfied if the law provides an injured person an effective and reasonable alternative remedy by due course of law for vindication of his constitutional interest. The benefit provided by the substitute must be substantially equal in value or other benefit to the remedy abrogated in providing essentially comparable substantive protection to one's person, property, or reputation, although the form of the substitute remedy may be different.... Second, if there is no substitute or alternative remedy provided, abrogation of the remedy or cause of action may be justified only if there is a clear social or economic evil to be eliminated and the elimination of an existing legal remedy is not an arbitrary or unreasonable means for achieving the objective. Berry, 717 P.2d at 680. ¶ 41 Thus, if the Legislature abrogates a remedy, and if it provides an effective and reasonable alternative remedy, id., the abrogation meets the requirements of Article I, section 11. See Payne v. Myers, 743 P.2d 186, 190 (Utah 1987) (suit against the State for negligence in lieu of suit against state employee). In a number of instances, the Legislature has provided non-common law alternative remedies in lieu of common law remedies that it abrogated, such as in the No-Fault Insurance Act, the Worker's Compensation Act, and the Occupational Disease Act. See Masich v. United States Smelting, Refining & Mining Co., 113 Utah 101, 191 P.2d 612, 624-25 (1948). ¶ 42 We examine now the first part of the Berry test. In 1983, the Legislature amended section 63-30-4(3) and abrogated all remedies against the tortfeasors themselves for negligence and recklessness of government employees acting in the course and scope of their employment. 1983 Utah Laws ch. 129, § 3. Government employees are now personally liable only for fraud or malice. See id. The consequence of that amendment was to abrogate the remedies that one who had been injured by the negligence or recklessness of a government employee had against the government employee personally. However, in lieu of that remedy, one injured by the negligence or recklessness of a government employee was provided a remedy against the government agency. ¶ 43 Thus, Mrs. Day was barred by section 63-30-4 from asserting an action against Officer Colyar. However, the amendment to section 63-30-7 in 1990 also barred her action against the government agency. Thus, for a period of a year and six days, the State barred all actions of the type asserted by Mrs. Day against both the government agency and its employees. [11] ¶ 44 Under this circumstance, we must turn to the second part of the Berry test. If the Legislature provides no alternative remedy, the abrogation is valid if it is justified by a clear social or economic evil to be eliminated and the elimination of an existing legal remedy is not an arbitrary or unreasonable means for achieving the objective. Berry, 717 P.2d at 680. In this case, we can look to the legislative history of the bill that amended § 63-30-7 to bar the action against the government agency to determine the reason for its enactment and whether the abrogation was an arbitrary or unreasonable means for achieving the elimination of a clear social or economic evil. Berry, 717 P.2d at 680. ¶ 45 Senator Richard Carling, the sponsor of Senate Bill 194, explained the reason for the bill on the Senate floor: Mr. President, this is a bill that came to us from the law enforcement community. They are being bothered by frivolous lawsuits now, by individuals not particularly in Utah, but this is a rash that started especially in California.... But because of the rash of suits mainly to try to get the government entity to come up with some money and settle these types of cases, suits have been filed. We want to put in statute what we understand to be the common law rule that if a police vehicle is chasing a suspect, and that suspect is involved in an accident, that there will not be liability to the police department or to the local government unless there was a reckless disregard of the safety of the public and therefore they would be able to come back against the police agency for that reason.... We understand that is the common law, and it [is] merely to try to stop some frivolous lawsuits that are being filed harassing government and police entities. See Senate debate, Senator Richard J. Carling, S.B. 194, February 4, 1990. ¶ 46 On its face, this statement identifies no social, economic, or any other evil in Utah. The problem identified by the sponsor of the amendment was a rash of frivolous lawsuits in California. No evidence was presented showing that Utah had experienced a similar rash of such frivolous lawsuits. Indeed, the sponsor made clear that the basis for the amendment was the situation in California, but not particularly in Utah. In other words, the Legislature was not acting to obviate a clear social evil in Utah. See Lee v. Gaufin, 867 P.2d 572, 583-88 (Utah 1993) (holding unconstitutional legislative abrogation of remedies based on economic and social problems that had occurred in other states but not in Utah). ¶ 47 Nor was there any showing that such an evil was likely to occur in Utah. Indeed, the fact that there was truly no factual basis for the abrogation of plaintiff's remedy is convincingly shown by the Legislature's repeal of the Act a little more than one year after its enactment and six weeks after the accident in issue. ¶ 48 Finally, Senator Carling's statement in support of the amendment misstated the actual effect of the amendment. Senator Carling stated that the amendment was intended to enact the common law rule that where a police vehicle chases a suspect and that suspect is involved in an accident, there is no liability unless the officer was engaged in reckless disregard of the safety of the public. That clearly was not the effect of the amendment. In fact, it imposed an absolute bar to such an action, whether based on recklessness or some other standard. In truth, the stated factual and legal bases justifying the amendment were simply in error, as is evident from its quick repeal. The stated basis for the abrogation of the remedy had no foundation. It follows that the Act barring the action for the time it was in effect was unconstitutional. ¶ 49 Reversed and remanded to the district court for trial. ¶ 50 Associate Chief Justice DURHAM and Justice RUSSON concur in Justice STEWART'S opinion. ¶ 51 Chief Justice HOWE concurs in the result.