Opinion ID: 2590190
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Is there an equal alternative remedy to the abrogated remedy against Chief Burton?

Text: ¶ 53 It stands to reason that under the first standard an abrogation of remedies is constitutional if there is an effective and reasonable alternative remedy that is substantially equal in value or other benefit to the remedy abrogated. Berry, 717 P.2d at 680. To the extent that a person's damages are less than the damage limitation of $250,000 imposed by section 63-30-34, the remedy against the governmental agency, as a substitute for a remedy against government employees, is constitutional because it is in all respects a remedy of equivalent value to the remedy against the employee. However, to the extent the damages awarded by a court exceed the statutory limitation, as in this case, the substitute remedy is by definition not equal to the remedy abrogated. Thus, the specific issue we now address is whether the damage limitation is constitutional when it limits recovery in an action that is a substitute for an action against a government employee. ¶ 54 In this case, plaintiffs have an alternative to the remedy against Chief Burton in the form of an action against the District. That remedy, however, unlike the traditional remedy against the employee is subject to the damage limitation and, therefore, is not substantially equal to the preexisting remedy against the employee.