Opinion ID: 1439615
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: precedent available for comparison

Text: A comprehensive review persuades me that in constitutional accommodation and democratic government idealism of the worth of the individual, Wyoming improvidently and precipitously moves backwards and out of constitutional justification. In Stone v. Arizona Highway Commission, 93 Ariz. 384, 381 P.2d 107, 109 (1963), the Arizona Supreme Court, in abolishing governmental immunity, first initiated in Hernandez v. County of Yuma County, 91 Ariz. 35, 369 P.2d 271, 272 (1962), quoted: It requires but a slight appreciation of the facts to realize that if the individual citizen is left to bear almost all the risk of a defective, negligent, perverse or erroneous administration of the state's functions, an unjust burden will become graver and more frequent as the government's activities are expanded and become more diversified. See also in considering a standard of review for access to the courts, Kenyon v. Hammer, 142 Ariz. 69, 688 P.2d 961 (1984). Annotation, Rule of Municipal Immunity From Liability For Acts in Performance of Governmental Functions as Applicable in Case of Personal Injury or Death as Result of a Nuisance, 75 A.L.R. 1196, 1196 (1931) has a classic observation for the sociological aspects of sovereign immunity: The whole doctrine of governmental immunity from liability for tort rests upon a rotten foundation. It is almost incredible that in this modern age of comparative sociological enlightenment, and in a republic, the medieval absolutism supposed to be implicit in the maxim, the King can do no wrong, should exempt the various branches of the government from liability for their torts,   . The New Mexico Supreme Court agreed: We concede that there was ample authority which influenced our predecessors in adopting and upholding the doctrine of sovereign immunity. We also say that there is better reasoned authority to overturn it. We simply conclude that its continuance is causing a great degree of injustice.       ``It is fundamental to our common law system that one may seek redress for every substantial wrong. The best statement of the rule is that a wrongdoer is responsible for the natural and proximate consequences of his misconduct... .' Battalla v. State, 10 N.Y.2d 237, 240, 219 N.Y.S.2d 34, 36, 176 N.E.2d 729, 730 (1961).' Hicks v. State, 88 N.M. 588, 544 P.2d 1153, 1156-57 (1975) (quoting Niederman v. Brodsky, 436 Pa. 401, 403, 261 A.2d 84, 85 (1970)). It is apparent that some retreat did occur in New Mexico by passage of the closed-end state tort claims act, but even that regression could not serve to justify the doubly regressive effect ulcerated onto justice for the injuries whenever now inflicted by this state. Garcia v. Albuquerque Public Schools Bd. of Ed., 95 N.M. 391, 622 P.2d 699 (1980). The Colorado court in Evans, 482 P.2d at 969-70 (footnotes omitted) related: The monarchical philosophies invented to solve the marital problems of Henry VIII are not sufficient justification for the denial of the right of recovery against the government in today's society. Assuming that there was sovereign immunity of the Kings of England, our forebears won the Revolutionary War to rid themselves of such sovereign prerogatives.    [T]he doctrines of sovereign and governmental immunity have been made by the courts and, when it appears that these rules were wrong when made and wrong currently, the courts should abolish the rule. In Washington, sovereign immunity was generally repealed by an enlightened legislature. See Paulson v. Pierce County, 99 Wash.2d 645, 664 P.2d 1202 (1983), even though the court thereafter only applied a minimum scrutiny test for classification. See however Hunter v. North Mason High School, 85 Wash.2d 810, 539 P.2d 845, 851 (1975) assessing in equal protection terms the invalidity of a non-claims statute in quoting from L. Levy, Judgments: Essays on American Constitutional History 18 (1972): The Constitution deals with great powers, many of them undefined, but they are decentralized, separated and distributed, checked and balanced, limited and prohibited. At the same time, most notably through the Bill of Rights and the great Reconstruction amendments, the Constitution requires that the game shall be played freely and fairly, with the judiciary as the umpire. `The great ideals of liberty and equality,' wrote Justice Cardozo, `are preserved against the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments, the scorn and derision of those who have no patience with general principles, by enshrining them in constitutions, and consecrating to the task of their protection a body of defenders.' The Idaho courts have been singularly forthright in denunciation and decision on the immunities. In Smith v. State, 93 Idaho 795, 473 P.2d 937, 945 (1970) (quoting Brown v. City of Omaha, 183 Neb. 430, 160 N.W.2d 805 (1968)), the immunities were judicially excised except for `what might be termed ministerial or discretionary functions nor on the exercise of legislative or judicial or quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial functions. See Holytz v. City of Milwaukee, [17 Wis.2d 26, 115 N.W.2d 618] supra. ' In Leliefeld v. Johnson, 104 Idaho 357, 659 P.2d 111 (1983), the court used the means-focus standard  the middle tier of their three standards  for equal protection analysis. This test examines the means specified in the legislation and searches for a `fair and substantial relation' between the means selected and the    legitimate purpose of the legislation. Id. 659 P.2d at 127. Technically, the Idaho legislature abolished government and sovereign immunity in advance of the judicially effective scheduled date established in Smith, 473 P.2d at 937, so that abolition was by the legislature in advance of a mandatory date affixed by the judiciary. The philosophic overlay of rights of citizens for protection against the torts of the state is pursued in comprehensive detail by that court distinguishing duty from discretion. Sterling v. Bloom, 111 Idaho 211, 723 P.2d 755 (1986). One of the members of that court noted in Hall, Sovereign Immunity and Re-Emergence of the Governmental/Proprietary Distinction: A Setback in Idaho's Governmental Liability Law, 20 Idaho L.Rev. 197, 197 (1984): Thus, when the government acts arbitrarily or unfairly in its dealings with the people, the basic foundations of the democracy are weakened. To the extent a government wrongs its citizens and permits that wrong to go without redress it loses a part of its license to govern. See also Comment, Lately The King Can Do Little Right: Idaho Governmental Immunity Doctrine in the Wake of Sterling v. Bloom, 24 Idaho L.Rev. 291 (1987-88). Strict scrutiny and particularized recognition of the effect of the constitutional guarantees of a speedy remedy for every injury of the Montana constitution found full enforcement in White v. State, 203 Mont. 363, 661 P.2d 1272, 1275 (1983) (emphasis added): The government has a valid interest in protecting its treasury. However, payment of tort judgments is simply a cost of doing business. There is no evidence in the record that the payment of such claims would impair the State's ability to function as a governmental entity or create a financial crisis. In fact, the State of Montana does have an interest in affording fair and reasonable compensation to citizens victimized by the negligence of the State. Therefore, the strict scrutiny test mandated by the implication of a fundamental right has not been satisfied and the statute prohibiting recovery for noneconomic damage is unconstitutional under the Montana State Constitution. We recognize that some limit on the State's liability may comport with the constitutional guarantees of equal protection. However, such a limitation cannot discriminate between those who suffer pain and loss of life quality and those who primarily suffer economically. The principal judicial examinations within this region advancing the development of the law of responsibility of the central society for its harm to its people from negligence or tortious misconduct is provided by Kansas and California. Kansas has since regressed by legislative reaction to an airplane crash in Colorado which killed a college football team. In briefing in this case, the state and now the majority rely heavily on the Kansas disaster defined in real and illusionary terms and reject the humanistically directed adaptations of California. Even for Kansas, only part of the entire story is told by the adaptation of citations used. Kansas, like most jurisdictions, has a troubled history of immunity litigation, but in quality of case writing, is impressive in logic, acrimonious in difference, and deeply directed in morality with frequent closely divided decisions. The modern law of Kansas commenced in the 1969 case of Carroll v. Kittle, 203 Kan. 841, 457 P.2d 21, 27 (1969): After careful consideration a majority of the court is now of the opinion that it is appropriate for this court to abolish governmental immunity for negligence, when the state or its governmental agencies are engaged in proprietary activities, in the absence of the legislature's failure to adopt corrective measures. However, in abolishing governmental immunity to the extent suggested, we want it clearly understood that we recognize the authority of the legislature to control the entire field including that part covered by this opinion. We would suggest that the legislature is in a much better position than this court to restrict the application of the doctrine because it can supplement the restriction with proper legislation in the form of provisions for insurance, etc., as stated in 61 Columbia Law Review, Judicial Lawmaking, p. 839: There is however, a limitation on judicial law making inherent in the nature of the judicial function. Courts can and indeed are called upon to adjust rights and liabilities in accordance with changing canons of public policy. But because they develop the law on a case-by-case basis they can not as can the legislature, undertake the establishment of a new legal institution, `an elaborate procedure of investigation and consideration eventuating in the approval of a particular form of words as law.' First to be changed by legislative reapproachment was Carroll, which followed Neely v. St. Francis Hospital & School of Nursing, Inc., 192 Kan. 716, 391 P.2d 155 (1964), where immunity for non-profit hospitals had been rejected when created by statute as declared unconstitutionally discriminatory. Carroll was then followed by Woods v. Kansas Turnpike Authority, 205 Kan. 770, 472 P.2d 219 (1970), which provided immunity protecting the turnpike authority against tort claims for negligently inflicted personal injuries. Inverse condemnation from the removal of lateral support was not similarly shielded from liability when negligently done by the state. Sanders v. State Highway Commission, 211 Kan. 776, 508 P.2d 981 (1973). No fault insurance met equal protection and due process constitutional test failures in Manzanares v. Bell, 214 Kan. 589, 522 P.2d 1291 (1974). Then came the litigation for the 1970's by virtue of the crash of a university chartered airplane carrying the Wichita State football team. The court in Brown v. Wichita State University, 217 Kan. 279, 540 P.2d 66, 81-83 (1975), opinion vacated in part 219 Kan. 2, 547 P.2d 1015, appeal dismissed sub nom. Bruce v. Wichita State University, 429 U.S. 806, 97 S.Ct. 41, 50 L.Ed.2d 67 (1976) (emphasis added) said: Under present Kansas law, no regard is given to the injury or the facts and circumstances surrounding the events which caused the injury  it is the type of governmental agency and the activity in which it is engaged that determines whether the aggrieved party will find the doors of the court open or closed. Such a classification is forced and unreal, and greater burdens are imposed on some than others of the same desert. We find the classification contained in [the Kansas statutes] are not only baffling, but arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable. The doctrine of governmental immunity is an historical anachronism which manifests an inefficient public policy and works injustice upon everyone concerned. The doctrine and the exceptions thereto, operate in such an illogical manner as to result in serious inequality. Liability is the rule for negligent or tortious conduct, immunity is the exception. But when the tortfeasor is a governmental agency, immunized from liability, the injured person must forego his right to redress unless within a specific exception. Equality is not achieved by artificial exceptions which indiscriminately grant some injured persons recourse in the courts and arbitrarily deny such relief to others. ( Winters v. Myers, 92 Kan. 414, 140 P. 1033.) The operative effect of such arbitrary distinctions are incompatible with the constitutional safeguards established by both the federal and Kansas Constitutions. Accordingly, we hold [the Kansas statutes] are unconstitutional and void as a denial of equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Sections 1 and 2 of the Kansas Bill of Rights.       We do not subscribe to the belief that convenience is a pervasive legislative objective sufficient to totally deprive the appellants access to the courts. Convenience is completely unacceptable as a standard by which to balance the rights of an individual against the interest of the state. Convenience should not outweigh an individual's right to be compensated for actual damages sustained and injuries suffered. ( Muskopf v. Corning Hospital Dist., 55 Cal.2d 211, 11 Cal. Rptr. 89, 359 P.2d 457.) To hold convenience is a permissible legislative objective, sufficient to insulate the government from negligence, is to engage in incredulous reasoning, void of logic, which undermines the very principles upon which this nation was founded. Brown I only lasted to rehearing in order to consider the effect of the post-1970 crash session of the state legislature which was directed to assure that families of the deceased football players would not be compensated by state government. Brown v. Wichita State University, 219 Kan. 2, 547 P.2d 1015, 1027, appeal dismissed sub nom. Bruce v. Wichita State University, 429 U.S. 806, 97 S.Ct. 41, 50 L.Ed.2d 67 (1976) ( Brown II ) (emphasis original), which validated the statute to recreate immunity in holding: In the absence of a suspect classification or a violation of a fundamental right, a statutory discrimination should not be set aside if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it. In that justification, the majority found three favorable interests to be protected: (1) save money, (2) avoid investment of employee time in legal proceedings, and (3) protection of the state from high risk activities. The dissent in Brown II, which was the majority in Brown I, recognized that the issue was not the doctrine of governmental immunity, but statutory utilization providing invidious discrimination. The majority cites no cases and my research reveals none which remain good authority for the proposition that a Legislature possesses unlimited power to statutorily grant or deny governmental liability in tort. That such legislative action is subject to the requirement of some rationality is illustrated by Harvey v. Clyde Park Dist., 32 Ill.2d 60, 203 N.E.2d 573. Brown, 547 P.2d at 1034. The author, quoting from Sherry, The Myth That the King Can Do No Wrong: A Comparative Study of the Sovereign Immunity Doctrine in the United States and New York Court of Claims, 22 Admin.L.Rev. 39, 57 (1969), stated: [The doctrine's survival is but a] ... state of mind conditioned by the spectre that its relinquishment will bankrupt the sovereign and result in governmental paralysis. Such a theory may well have been justifiable in colonial times. But today there is universal agreement that immunity has far outlived its usefulness and is a discredited relic of the past not consonant with the needs of civilized society. Brown, 547 P.2d at 1037. And analyzed in response that: The necessity of protecting the state treasury fails as a rational justification for discriminating between those persons who fall within the different classes created by [the Kansas statutes]. The second interest cited as justifying the discriminatory classifications is equally indefensible. To say that government needs to be able to operate unhampered by the threat of legal actions intimates that the state should not be bothered by the fact it has injured people because it has more important things to do. ... A government of `of, by and for the people' derives its strength from being just and reasonable and not irresponsible in its dealings with the people ... `To submit, in justification of the rule, that the immunity is necessary for the proper functioning of [government], is to propound the obvious contradiction that the agency formed to protect society is under no obligation, when active itself, to protect an individual member of society.' Blades [ A Comment on Governmental Tort Immunity in Kansas, 16 Kan.L.Rev. 265] at 267-68 [(1968)]. To say that the threat of legal actions will intolerably hamper government activities is to say that government alone, among all our institutions, cannot properly function if it shoulders responsibility for its actions. Id. at 1038. After applying a similar critique of invalidity to a high risk justification, Chief Justice Fatzer concluded: But all three interests fail as reasonable justifications for making a distinction between the classes, created by the statute for an even more basic reason: the arguments supporting discrimination in favor of the state apply equally well to other governmental entities. If the state treasury needs protection, why do the treasuries of lesser units of government not need it even more? Id. at 1039. The operational difference in Kansas through Brown II was that the recreated immunity did not include historical areas of liability for local units of government, as is the present case here. Consequently, Kansas stands on a broadly different posture from Wyoming. We have in this appeal an even more exacerbated discrimination invalidity by place where the negligent act occurs. In Flax v. Kansas Turnpike Authority, 226 Kan. 1, 596 P.2d 446, 451 (1979), the agency relearned that it was unconstitutionally excluded by immunity from liability: To paraphrase Carroll [457 P.2d 21]: It is difficult to see why the state, counties, townships and cities performing precisely the same acts  e.g., the maintenance of a public thoroughfare  should be liable for defective roadways and the Kansas turnpike authority should not.    [The Kansas statute], which appellee contends would deny recovery to the turnpike motorists cannot be constitutionally valid as to that group in view of the other legislation which specifically grants a right of recovery to all other motorists. The rule of Flax as following Harvey v. Clyde Park District, 32 Ill.2d 60, 203 N.E.2d 573 (1964) denied constitutionality based on classification by place. This course of Kansas cases could not then be properly concluded without recognizing Farley v. Engelken, 241 Kan. 663, 740 P.2d 1058 (1987), attending a statutorily created medical review panel which was declared unconstitutional. It is not alone that Farley was a principle authority on our succeeding decision in Hoem, 756 P.2d 780, but the case served as a foundation for the test of review under the equal protection requirement intrinsically involved in our later conclusions in the succeeding medical review panel unconstitutionality conclusion. The Kansas court observed that [a]s the above review illustrates, the level of scrutiny to be applied often determines the constitutionality of the statute. Farley, 740 P.2d at 1063. A heightened scrutiny review was undertaken for the access to the court foundational issues presented. The conclusion was that the Kansas Bill of Rights which provided that all persons for injuries suffered in person, reputation or property shall have remedy by the due course of law and justice administered without delay. Our court then followed that analysis with the similar heightened scrutiny in Hoem, 756 P.2d 780 for determination that the Wyoming medical review panel was also unconstitutional. In some present reasoned application of stare decisis, I observe that Flax and Farley should also decide this case to require a similar result for Chapter 89. Consistently for the Kansas malpractice statute, Kansas Malpractice Victims Coalition v. Bell, 243 Kan. 333, 757 P.2d 251 (1988), a cap for limitation of recovery on medical malpractice claims failed the constitutional tests of a right to due process and trial by jury. In recognizing invalidity, that court further observed that after abolition or a modification of a common law remedy, there was no adequate substitute remedy provided. The required quid pro quo was not included. Note, Statutory Caps on Damages and the Right to Jury Trial, 54 Mo.L.Rev. 471 (1989). For Missouri law, compare generally, Comment, Sovereign Immunity: A Framework for Applying Current Missouri Law, 51 Mo.L.Rev. 535 (1986). California jurisprudence moved faster and continued more emphatically. The philosophically foundational case which recognized the social invalidity of the immunities comes in Justice Traynor's seminal opinion in Muskopf v. Corning Hospital District, 55 Cal.2d 211, 11 Cal. Rptr. 89, 359 P.2d 457 (1961). The author recognized in the decision of that court that divergent paths had led to the development of governmental or local immunities as contrasted with sovereign immunity, and that [t]he rule of governmental immunity for tort is an anachronism, without rational basis, and has existed only by the force of inertia, id. 11 Cal. Rptr. at 92, 359 P.2d at 460 (citing Borchard, Governmental Responsibility for Tort, 34 Yale L.J. 1, 129, 229; Casner and Fuller, Municipal Tort Liability in Operation, 54 Harv.L.Rev. 437; and Repko, Commentary on Municipal Tort Liability, 9 Law and Contemp.Probs. 214), and [i]t has been judicially abolished in other jurisdictions. Muskopf, 11 Cal. Rptr. at 92, 359 P.2d at 460. He concluded that [n]one of the reasons for its continuance can withstand analysis. No one defends total governmental immunity. In fact, it does not exist. It has become riddled with exceptions, both legislative    and judicial   , and the exceptions operate so illogically as to cause serious inequality. Some who are injured by governmental agencies can recover, others cannot: one injured while attending a community theater in a public park may recover   , but one injured in a children's playground may not   . Id. 11 Cal. Rptr. at 92, 359 P.2d at 460 (citations omitted). The moral persuasion and the humanistic logic of Muskopf led numerous other states to follow, including finally this state. Only the vestigial remains of such governmental immunity have survived; its requiem has long been foreshadowed. For years the process of erosion of governmental immunity has gone on unabated. The Legislature has contributed mightily to that erosion. The courts, by distinction and extension, have removed much of the force of the rule. Thus, in holding that the doctrine of governmental immunity for torts for which its agents are liable has no place in our law we make no startling break with the past but merely take the final step that carries to its conclusion an established legislative and judicial trend. Id. 11 Cal. Rptr. at 95, 359 P.2d at 463. Our utilization of the persuasion of Muskopf in Oroz, 575 P.2d 1155 justified evaluation that its moral and logical content cannot be disregarded in properly reviewing the present actions of this court for what should be good law today. County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 62 Cal.2d 839, 44 Cal. Rptr. 796, 402 P.2d 868 (1965) carries forward the persuasion of Muskopf in current testing of equal protection by use of the reasoned scrutiny review standard. See likewise Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal.3d 584, 96 Cal. Rptr. 601, 487 P.2d 1241 (1971), which became a monumentally important case on education and led the way for later developments in Wyoming in Washakie County School Dist. No. One v. Herschler, 606 P.2d 310 (Wyo.), cert. denied sub nom. Hot Springs County School District Number 1 v. Washakie County School District Number 1, 449 U.S. 824, 101 S.Ct. 86, 66 L.Ed.2d 28 (1980). The California court in Brown v. Merlo, 8 Cal.3d 855, 106 Cal. Rptr. 388, 506 P.2d 212 (1973), like Wyoming in Nehring v. Russell, 582 P.2d 67 (Wyo. 1978) five years later, declared the guest statute to be unconstitutional. Overinclusion was the vice of the statute to be observed. Brown, 106 Cal. Rptr. at 103, 506 P.2d at 227. See Tussman and tenBroek, The Equal Protection of the Laws, 37 Cal.L.Rev. 341, 351-52 (1949) and Van Alstyne, Governmental Tort Liability: A Public Policy Prospectus, 10 UCLA L.Rev. 463 (1963). Erratic and fortuitous operation of a statute denied the requirements of equal protection, including citation of Harvey, 203 N.E.2d 573 and its rejection of a place classification as constitutionally discretionary. The court in Brown, 506 P.2d at 216-17 (emphasis in original) said: A classification must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and must rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation, so that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike. See also American Bank & Trust Co. v. Community Hospital of Los Gatos-Saratoga, Inc., 104 Cal. App.3d 219, 163 Cal. Rptr. 513, 517 (1980). It is my persuasion that the authorities demonstrate that reasonable rationality as a test cannot be fulfilled where the determinant is accident of place. The Florida judiciary in early progression to justice solved the problem of immunity at least in part by recision in Hargrove v. Town of Cocoa Beach, 96 So.2d 130, 132 (Fla. 1957): Assuming that the immunity rule had its inception in the Men of Devon case, and most legal historians agree that it did, it should be noted that this case was decided in 1788, some twelve years after our Declaration of Independence. Be that as it may, our own feeling is that the courts should be alive to the demands of justice. We can see no necessity for insisting on legislative action in a matter which the courts themselves originated. The problem in Florida has become more confusing because of an effort to prune and pare the rule of immunity rather than to uproot it bodily and lay it aside as we should any other archaic and outmoded concept. This pruning approach has produced numerous strange and incongruous results. Excluding the legislative or judicial function that might be exercised with immunity, that court held: Subject to the limitations above announced, we here merely hold that when an individual suffers a direct, personal injury proximately caused by the negligence of a municipal employee while acting within the scope of his employment, the injured individual is entitled to redress for the wrong done. To support the rule we hearken back to our original Florida precedent, City of Tallahassee v. Fortune, supra [3 Fla. 19 (1850)]. Our judicial forbears there held that where an individual suffers a special personal damage not common to the community but proximately resulting from the negligence of the municipal corporation acting through its employees, such individual is entitled to redress. We think this general rule was sound when it was announced in 1850 and it should be reestablished as the law of Florida. Within the framework of the above announced limitations this is the rule of our present opinion. In this vein, we therefore point out that instead of disregarding the rule of stare decisis, we now merely restore the original concepts of our jurisprudence to a position of priority in order to eradicate the deviations that have in our view detracted from the justice of the initial rule. Id. at 133-34 (footnote omitted). See also Thompson v. City of Jacksonville, 130 So.2d 105 (Fla.App. 1961), cert. denied 147 So.2d 530 (Fla. 1962), limited later to exclude intentional torts of municipal employees. Alabama likewise recognized the incongruity of a discriminatory denial of justice in Chandler v. Hospital Authority of City of Huntsville, 500 So.2d 1012 (Ala. 1986) and Peddycoart v. City of Birmingham, 354 So.2d 808 (Ala. 1978) to be even judicially unacceptable under the application of a rational basis standard. See likewise, Jackson v. Mannesmann Demag Corp., 435 So.2d 725 (Ala. 1983), court access. See also Sweeney v. State, 768 S.W.2d 253 (Tenn. 1989), dangerous highway with notice and City of Dallas v. Donovan, 768 S.W.2d 905 (Tex. App. 1989), missing stop signs and actual notice determinants of governmental liability. Case law in Missouri affords scant support for this instant decision. The court in Jones v. State Highway Commission, 557 S.W.2d 225, 227 n. 1 (Mo. 1977), as a comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion, abrogated sovereign immunity against tort liability and recognized by footnote that twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia had, by judicial decision to some degree, done the same. [14] That court reflected that [o]ur duty is to respond to the claims which come before us in a manner consistent with the principles embedded in our constitution, statutes, and judicial precedents. This requires, on rare occasions, as it does today, that we reject an earlier rule. Id. at 227. As citing for earlier discussion on the nature of contemporary judicial processes, Jones, 557 S.W.2d at 227 n. 2 cites Day, Why Judges Must Make Law, 26 Case W.L.Rev. 563 (1976); Dworkin, Hard Cases, 88 Harv.L. Rev. 1057 (1975); and Hart, Law in the Perspective of Philosophy: 1776-1976, 51 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 538 (1976). Subsequent authority is suggested in Winston v. Reorganized School Dist. R-2, Lawrence County, Miller, Mo., 636 S.W.2d 324 (Mo. 1982) after the state legislature had adopted a tort claim code. Where immunity was expressly waived as to tort claims arising from the operation of motor vehicles or from the condition of a public entity's property,  that law did not create the place discriminatory attribute here affixed by Chapter 89. Id. at 328 (emphasis in original). That court recognized: Care can be taken in the selection and supervision of persons authorized to operate motor vehicles and detailed plans developed to control their use. Similar care may be exercised as to persons who maintain the public entities' property, and once on notice of a dangerous condition, remedial action may be undertaken to correct it. Id. at 329. The Arkansas court similarly considered governmental immunity for municipalities in Parish v. Pitts, 244 Ark. 1239, 429 S.W.2d 45 (1968) and abolished immunity except for conduct involving judgment or discretion or judicial or legislative activities. The legislature acted by reinstitution and a general immunity structure was enacted. Hardin v. City of Devalls Bluff, 256 Ark. 480, 508 S.W.2d 559 (1974); Sullivan v. Pulaski County, 247 Ark. 259, 445 S.W.2d 94 (1969). In Kentucky, a bill for a capped total for recovery for liability for a single incident was justified in Com. v. Daniel, 266 Ky. 285, 98 S.W.2d 897 (1936). A converse result as to a special bill is found in Com. v. McCoun, 313 S.W.2d 585 (Ky. 1958), where a special bill was invalidated since a general statute had been enacted. The legislature had enacted a claims act code. See University of Kentucky v. Guynn, 372 S.W.2d 414 (Ky. 1963). In Pruett v. City of Rosedale, 421 So.2d 1046 (Miss. 1982), the supreme court abolished immunity perspectively by recognizing the judicial creation and beneficial judicial abrogation. Mississippi was then one of only six states without some action. For a good many years now, state after state has decided that the principle that the King [state] can do no wrong is not a legal principle that should receive a blanket application in modern times. There are many examples of the inequities involved in this principle. Under modern times, it is disadvantageous to both members of the public and members of the sovereign state. For the layman, an appropriate example would be where a conservation officer while on business for the state and operating an uninsured state vehicle, in the process of trying to apprehend a violator, and for some negligent reason, lost control of the state vehicle and injures an innocent person, both the injured person and the state employee are in deep trouble. All the state has to do is say, we are the sovereign king and you do not have a claim for your injuries received through no fault of yours. Furthermore, the state employee is subject to a personal suit and the entire matter would have a great chance of ruining two persons, both the state employee and the innocent member of the public. Id. at 1047. The legislature reacted by a general moratorium and partial remission where liability insurance was obtained with the moratorium to end on or after July 1, 1987 and the state in October 1, 1987 as political subdivisions. See McFadden v. State, 542 So.2d 871 (Miss. 1989); Region VII, Mental Health-Mental Retardation Center v. Isaac, 523 So.2d 1013 (Miss. 1988) and Strait v. Pat Harrison Waterway Dist., 523 So.2d 36 (Miss. 1988). The Rhode Island court recognized that [t]he immunization of municipal corporations from liability for the tortious conduct engaged in by their officers or servants during the performance of a governmental function has been repudiated repeatedly during the last decade. Becker v. Beaudoin, 106 R.I. 562, 261 A.2d 896, 899 (1970). That court then held that the immunity conferred by the courts was abrogated perspectively. The New Jersey Supreme Court similarly observed: It is plainly unjust to refuse relief to persons injured by the wrongful conduct of the State. No one seems to defend that refusal as fair. There has been a steady movement away from immunity. In some jurisdictions, the change has been achieved by judicial decision, Muskopf v. Corning Hospital District, 55 Cal.2d 211, 11 Cal. Rptr. 89, 359 P.2d 457 (1961); Stone v. Arizona Highway Comm., 93 Ariz. 384 381 P.2d 107 (1963), and in others by statutes which consented to suit in the courts or provided for relief before an administrative or legislative body. Willis v. Department of Conservation and Economic Development, 55 N.J. 534, 264 A.2d 34, 36 (1970). In consequent action to comply with theory, immunity was eliminated without expression of an ultimate doctrine. See Frank Briscoe Co., Inc. v. Rutgers the State University and College of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, 130 N.J. Super. 493, 327 A.2d 687 (1974). Special legislation challenged the Connecticut court by consideration of equal protection constraints in voiding a Sunday closing blue law, Caldor's, Inc. v. Bedding Barn, Inc., 177 Conn. 304, 417 A.2d 343 (1979), and then rejecting a discriminatory place law in Ryszkiewicz v. City of New Britain, 193 Conn. 589, 479 A.2d 793 (1984), which limited recovery for the torts of that city. The limitation did not apply to other municipalities of the state in citing with approval Peddycoart, 354 So.2d 808 and Flax, 596 P.2d 446. The place classification as differentiating towns could not be constitutionally justified. [15] The Supreme Court of Indiana considered its immunity standard in a state contaminated beach injury case, Perkins v. State, 252 Ind. 549, 251 N.E.2d 30, 32-33 (1969): There is no plain, unequivocal statement in the Constitution that the State of Indiana shall be immune against suits imposing a liability for damages; only an inference might be drawn from the above section. As we read this section it occurs to us that the framers of the Constitution assumed that at common law the State was immune from suit and authorized the legislature to modify such liability to the extent it may see fit, providing that no private acts or special acts were passed for the benefit of some individual. We are dealing here not with a constitution prohibition, but rather with a principle of common law which has its roots in the ancient common law of England which held The King can do no wrong and hence could not be sued in any court of law. Blackstone's Commentaries on The Law, Gavit's Ed., p. 111.       The common law changes. The principle of stare decisis should not always confine our thinking in any case. There has been within the last two or three decades considerable revaluation and consideration with reference to the principle of sovereign immunity. Circumstances in bygone ages may have warranted some of the rather strict principles found in the common law relative to sovereign and charitable immunities. However, the common law of today is not a frozen mold of ancient ideas, but such law is active and dynamic and thus changes with the times and growth of society to meet its needs. Oliver Wendell Holmes, in a discussion of early forms of liability in his Common Law, pp. 36, 37, 1881 Ed., makes this statement with reference to its development:    The truth is that the law is always approaching, and never reaching, consistency. It is forever adopting new principles from life at one end, and it always retains old ones from history at the other, which have not yet been absorbed or sloughed off. It will become entirely consistent only when it ceases to grow. That court then held in quoting the California case of People v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco, 29 Cal.2d 754, 178 P.2d 1 (1947) that `[w]here the state engages in industrial or business enterprises as distinguished from purely governmental activities, tort liability attaches.' Perkins, 251 N.E.2d at 34-35. That court then left unanswered the comparable question of immunity for governmental actions and functions. See however, Johnson v. St. Vincent Hospital, Inc., 273 Ind. 374, 404 N.E.2d 585 (1980), where the medical malpractice act was constitutionally justified in providing limitations for recovery and diminution of the injured party's right to jury. One of the leading cases addressing the national trend against continued immunity was authored for Illinois law in Molitor v. Kaneland Community Unit Dist. No. 302, 18 Ill.2d 11, 163 N.E.2d 89 (1959), cert. denied 362 U.S. 968, 80 S.Ct. 955, 4 L.Ed.2d 900 (1960). In recognizing that the asserted basis of immunity, Men of Devon, 100 Eng.Rep. 359, had been overruled in England in 1890, the court surveyed government tort law for Illinois and recognized the dissatisfaction with continuation: As was stated by one court, The whole doctrine of governmental immunity from liability for tort rests upon a rotten foundation. It is almost incredible that in this modern age of comparative sociological enlightenment, and in a republic, the medieval absolutism supposed to be implicit in the maxim, `the King can do no wrong,' should exempt the various branches of the government from liability for their torts, and that the entire burden of damage resulting from the wrongful acts of the government should be imposed upon the single individual who suffers the injury,   .    [C]ourts have overlooked the fact that the Revolutionary War was fought to abolish that divine right of kings on which the theory is based. Molitor, 163 N.E.2d at 94 (quoting Barker v. City of Santa Fe, 47 N.M. 85, 136 P.2d 480, 482 (1943)). The Illinois court recognized that providing responsibility for negligence, by abolishing immunity, would secure the public good by increasing safety: As Dean Harno said: A municipal corporation today is an active and virile creature capable of inflicting much harm. Its civil responsibility should be co-extensive. The municipal corporation looms up definitely and emphatically in our law, and what is more, it can and does commit wrongs. This being so, it must assume the responsibilities of the position it occupies in society. (Harno, Tort Immunity of Municipal Corporations, 4 Ill.L.Q. 28, 42.) Id. 163 N.E.2d at 95-96. In reversing summary denial of relief by the trial court, the tribunal concluded that the rule of school district tort immunity is unjust, unsupported by any valid reason, and has no rightful place in modern day society. Id. at 96. A similar resolution followed for a park district immunity in Harvey, 203 N.E.2d 573. An irrational classification could not be justified for constitutional denial of the remedy for the injury negligently inflicted. Many of the activities that frequently give rise to tort liability are common to all governmental units. The operation of automobiles is an obvious example. From the perspective of the injured party, or from the point of view of ability to insure against liability for negligent operation, there is no reason why one who is injured by a park district truck should be barred from recovery, while one who is injured by a city or village truck is allowed to recover, and one injured by a school district truck is allowed to recover only within a prescribed limit. And to the extent that recovery is permitted or denied on an arbitrary basis, a special privilege is granted in violation of section 22 of article IV. Id. at 576. Furthermore, an improper pattern of discrimination based on the agency of responsibility is logically comparable to the place-defined-patchwork effect of Chapter 89. See the effect of insurance in Sullivan v. Midlothian Park Dist., 51 Ill.2d 274, 281 N.E.2d 659 (1972). See also Baum, Tort Liability of Local Governments and Their Employees: An Introduction to the Illinois Immunity Act, 1966 U.Ill.L.F. 981 (1966). Ohio became a principal state in immunity litigation as substantively pursued at an early date in Raudabaugh v. State, 96 Ohio St. 513, 118 N.E. 102 (1917). A constitutional clause fairly similar to the last sentence of Wyo. Const. art. 1, § 8, `Suits may be brought against the state, in such courts and in such manner, as may be provided by law,' was considered in determining whether or not the provision was self-executing in character. Raudabaugh, 118 N.E. at 102 (quoting Ohio Const. art. 1, § 16) (emphasis in original). The case held that the provision of the Ohio Constitution    is not self-executing, and that legislative authority by statute is required as a prerequisite to the bringing of an action against the state in its own courts. Id. at 103. Despite a recognition of a widespread criticism, the decision was restated in 1972 in the case of Krause v. State, 31 Ohio St.2d 132, 285 N.E.2d 736 (1972). A general elimination of immunity for the operation of motor vehicles as strained by exception of active duty operation for police and firemen was validated for constitutional classification in Nanna v. Village of McArthur, 44 Ohio App.2d 22, 335 N.E.2d 712 (1974). Contrary to Indiana, provisions of the Ohio medical practice act were invalidated for improper classification on a constitutional perspective. The court held [t]here is no satisfactory reason for this separate and unequal treatment between medical malpractice litigation and other tort proceedings. Graley v. Satayatham, 343 N.E.2d 832, 837 (Ohio 1976). Furthermore, [e]ven remaining within the area of the professions, it is notable that the special consideration given to the medical profession by these statutes is not given to lawyers or dentists or others who are subject to malpractice suits. Id. at 837. In Haverlack v. Portage Homes, Inc., 2 Ohio St.3d 26, 442 N.E.2d 749 (1982), the court held that the abolition of immunity as applied to municipal corporations also abrogated the doctrine of governmental immunity for park districts. In Marrek v. Cleveland Metroparks Bd. of Com'rs, 9 Ohio St.3d 194, 459 N.E.2d 873 (1984), a differentiation was established between exercise of a legislative or judicial function or the exercise of executive or planning function compared to negligence of employees in the performance of their activities. Failure to supervise a sledding area evoked conduct not protected by governmental immunity. However, a statutory immunity for all property owners under the circumstance was said to apply to the claimant as a recreational user. Consequently, the district did not owe a duty to the user to keep the premises safe for use. Citation of this authority for an immunity perspective is improvident. Related directly to Ohio law, an interesting comparison is provided by Howarth, Sovereign Immunity  An Argument Pro, 22 Clev.St.L.Rev. 48 (1973) and Sindell, Sovereign Immunity  An Argument Con, 22 Clev.St.L.Rev. 55 (1973). See also Murray and Murray, The Unconstitutionality of Sovereign Immunity in Ohio  Last Stand for the Illegitimate King, 18 U.Tol.L.Rev. 77, 77 (1986): Ohio courts have witnessed as long and fierce a battle over the doctrine of sovereign immunity as any courts in the nation. Victory has passed between the citizens and the government with the balance of sovereign power and individual rights dependent upon contemporary notions of justice. See Note, Interpreting the Tort Liability of the State of Ohio: Reynolds v. State, 48 Ohio St.L.J. 577 (1987). Hardy v. VerMeulen, 32 Ohio St.3d 45, 512 N.E.2d 626 (1987), cert. denied 484 U.S. 1066, 108 S.Ct. 1029, 98 L.Ed.2d 993 (1988) is persuasive in addressing medical malpractice statutory denial of a right to a remedy. Another of the principal opinions rejecting continued validity for immunity was provided by Spanel v. Mounds View School District No. 621, 264 Minn. 279, 118 N.W.2d 795 (1962) by prospectively overruling the doctrine of immunity with respect to tort claims against school districts. Further attention concluded that a claim statute was discriminatory, Glassmann v. Miller, 356 N.W.2d 655 (Minn. 1984), and denial of right of any recipient of worker's compensation was improper, Bernthal v. City of St. Paul, 376 N.W.2d 422 (Minn. 1985). In Bernthal, the court considered two potentially identifiable purposes which may have fueled the enactment process: elimination of benefit to an insurance carrier and protection of the government entity from financial responsibility. However, the opinion went on to say: Assuming the two identified purposes of [the statute], are legitimate, the question remains whether the classification the statute creates permissibly furthers these purposes. To be constitutional, it must have been reasonable for the legislators to believe that use of the classification would promote the identified purposes. Furthermore, the classification, even if it does further the purpose, cannot withstand rationality analysis if the classification is based upon criteria wholly unrelated to the objective of the statute. Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71, 76, 92 S.Ct. 251, 254, 30 L.Ed.2d 225 (1971). The classification must rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation, so that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412, 415, 40 S.Ct. 560, 561-62, 64 L.Ed. 989 (1920). Id. at 425-26 (emphasis added). Williams v. City of Detroit, 364 Mich. 231, 111 N.W.2d 1 (1961) provided a similar anticipatory elimination of immunity on a closely divided vote. [16] See Cooperrider, The Court, the Legislature, and Governmental Tort Liability in Michigan, 72 Mich.L.Rev. 187 (1973). Within the modernizing trend, the Nebraska court was first directed to municipal immunity: Particularly during the past 10 years, judicial opinions in increasing volume have pointed out the fact that the reasons underlying the traditional wide-sweeping rule of sovereign immunity have virtually disappeared in modern society. The rule is today no longer just, reasonable, nor defensible. The judicial attack on the traditional rule of governmental immunity has resulted in judicial abrogation of the doctrine in several states. [Citing cases from California, Illinois, Florida, New Jersey, Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona.] See, also, Hink and Schulter, Some Thoughts on the American Law of Governmental Tort Liability, 20 Rutgers L.Rev. 710 (1966); A Comment on Government Tort Immunity in Kansas, 16 Kan.L.Rev. 265 (Jan. 1968). The major conflict is no longer whether the traditional doctrine of governmental immunity from tort liability is obsolete and unjust, but, instead, lies in the area of the responsibility and power of the courts to reform it. For a discussion of the relative responsibility of courts and legislatures in this area, see, The Role of the Courts in Abolishing Governmental Immunity, Duke L.J. (1964), 888; Peck, The Role of the Courts and Legislatures in the Reform of Tort Law, 48 Minn.L.Rev. 265.       The dozen or so state supreme courts that have recently abrogated the immunity doctrine have recognized that an unjust and irrational principle cannot be allowed to persist on the hollow ground that changing an antiquated rule is a job for the legislature. 16 Kan.L.Rev. 265 at page 273. Brown, 160 N.W.2d at 806-07. That Nebraska court determined to proceed by action more effectively directed to a solution more narrowly limited to specific facts framed in litigated cases. Any modification ultimately shaped by this court should be limited to torts and should not be construed as imposing liability on any governmental body in the exercise of what might be termed ministerial or discretionary functions nor on the exercise of legislative or judicial or quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial functions. Id. at 808. That court then held that cities and other governmental subdivisions and local public bodies were not immune from tort liability arising out of the ownership use and operation of motor vehicles. Brown is followed by the university track meet accident of Johnson v. Municipal University of Omaha, 184 Neb. 512, 169 N.W.2d 286, 288 (1969): The issue of immunity and the issue of liability are two complete and distinct issues. The removal of governmental immunity in a specified area of tort actions does not impose absolute liability in place of immunity. It only makes a governmental entity subject to the same rules which apply to nongovernmental persons or corporations who do not have the shield of sovereign governmental immunity. In the posture of the case before us, the demurrer to the petition can be sustained only if the doctrine of governmental immunity applies to this case in its full traditional sweep. The court said no. See Comment, The Doctrine of Governmental Immunity in Nebraska, 1 Creighton L.Rev. 79 (1968). In Iowa, the legislature intervened by passage of a general tort claims act in purpose perceived by the court: We can only conclude the General Assembly saw no ultimate advantage to the state by continuing to cast upon some unfortunate individuals the full burden of damage done by the tortious conduct of state officers, agents or employees. Hubbard v. State, 163 N.W.2d 904, 910 (Iowa 1969) (quoting Graham v. Worthington, 259 Iowa 845, 860-61, 146 N.W.2d 626, 636-37 (1966)). The Iowa act was an open-end tort claim act with stated immunity exceptions. Lloyd v. State, 251 N.W.2d 551 (Iowa 1977); Saxton v. State, 206 N.W.2d 85 (Iowa 1973). Wisconsin moved from denied subrogation relief for car damage by applied immunity in Firemen's Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J. v. Washburn County, 2 Wis.2d 214, 85 N.W.2d 840 (1957), [17] to elimination of the immunity absolution in Holytz v. City of Milwaukee, 17 Wis.2d 26, 115 N.W.2d 618 (1962). Another problem which we foresee regarding the scope of this decision is the determination of what public bodies are within the scope of the abrogation of the rule. The case at bar relates specifically to a city; however, we consider that abrogation of the doctrine applies to all public bodies within the state: the state, counties, cities, villages, towns, school districts, sewer districts, drainage districts, and any other political subdivisions of the state  whether they be incorporated or not. By reason of the rule of respondeat superior a public body shall be liable for damages for the torts of its officers, agents and employees occurring in the course of the business of such public body. So far as the state of Wisconsin and its various arms is concerned, a careful distinction must be made between the abrogation of the immunity doctrine and the right of a private party to sue the state. Holytz, 115 N.W.2d at 625 (emphasis added). No smooth pathway to justice for the negligently injured in Wisconsin was to be found as witnessed by the recognized sovereign immunity in Cords v. State, 62 Wis.2d 42, 214 N.W.2d 405 (1974), and the constitutionality of a liability cap in Sambs v. City of Brookfield, 97 Wis.2d 356, 293 N.W.2d 504, cert. denied 449 U.S. 1035, 101 S.Ct. 611, 66 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980) and Stanhope v. Brown County, 90 Wis.2d 823, 280 N.W.2d 711 (1979). Conversely, the coroner was not immunized from responsibility for fault without exercised discretion in Scarpaci v. Milwaukee County, 96 Wis.2d 663, 292 N.W.2d 816 (1980), and a public lake could unconstitutionally take according to Zinn v. State, 112 Wis.2d 417, 334 N.W.2d 67 (1983). Finally, the Milwaukee Brewer's baseball team merited review and protection from contended unconstitutional legislation which could permit an adjacent prison to be built. Milwaukee Brewers Baseball Club v. Wisconsin Dept. of Health and Social Services, 130 Wis.2d 79, 387 N.W.2d 254 (1986). North Dakota found immunity and no arbitrary or indefensible classification among tort victims to differentiate by government agencies with or without insurance, Patch v. Sebelius, 320 N.W.2d 511 (N.D. 1982), but a medical malpractice act denied a quid pro quo for the classification which invaded constitutional protection and was consequently invalid in Arneson v. Olson, 270 N.W.2d 125 (N.D. 1978). See also Lyons v. Lederle Laboratories, A Div. of American Cyanamid Co., 440 N.W.2d 769 (S.D. 1989). Consequently, the demonstrated aversion of courts changed with delivery of justice to the denial concepts of immunity is nearly unanimous.