Opinion ID: 1287276
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: statutory governmental immunity for negligence

Text: Defendants contend that under subsections 63-30-4(3) and (4) of the Governmental Immunity Act, they cannot be personally liable to Bott for damages under either the negligence theory or the state constitutional theory unless they acted with fraud or malice. See Maddocks v. Salt Lake City Corp., 740 P.2d 1337, 1339 (Utah 1987); Lancaster v. Utah State Prison, 740 P.2d 261, 262 (Utah 1987). The court below rejected that argument, ruling that subsections 63-30-4(3) and (4) violated the open courts clause of the Utah Constitution, Utah Const. art. I, § 11. We initially dispose of Bott's contention that defendants did not preserve the issue of governmental immunity for appeal. As defendants point out, Laney's first response to the negligence action was to move for dismissal on the basis of governmental immunity. The trial court denied this motion when it ruled that subsections 63-30-4(3) and (4) were unconstitutional. Meanwhile, in the action for damages under the state and federal constitutions, DeLand, Freestone, and Laney pleaded the defense of immunity in their answer to the amended complaint. After the court consolidated the claims, held trial, and received the jury's verdict, defendants again raised the issue of governmental immunity in their memorandum in support of judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The court again refused to apply governmental immunity. Thus, defendants, who appeal from all of these orders, properly preserved the issue of governmental immunity for appeal.
In arguing that governmental immunity does not shield Laney from the negligence action, Bott asserts that this court should affirm the trial court's ruling that subsections 63-30-4(3) and (4) are unconstitutional because they violate the open courts clause, article I, section 11, the due process clause, article I, section 7, and the uniform operation of laws clause, article I, section 24 of the Utah Constitution. We have already addressed these arguments in Ross v. Schackel, 920 P.2d 1159 (Utah 1996), also issued today, and have determined that these subsections are constitutional as applied to prisoners' negligence actions against prison physicians. Bott's claim against Laney differs from the plaintiff's claim in Ross only in that Laney is a nurse practitioner, not a physician. Although prison physicians arguably enjoy a higher status within the prison employment system than nurse practitioners, we conclude that this difference does not prevent us from applying the constitutional analysis advanced in Ross. In Ross, we held that subsections 63-30-4(3) and (4) do not violate the open courts clause because they did not abrogate a remedy available to prisoners at common law. We find no basis for distinguishing Laney's position from the position of the prison physician in Ross, and thus we conclude that Bott could not have maintained a negligence action against Laney at common law and that subsections 63-30-4(3) and (4) are constitutional under the open courts clause. Our analysis of these subsections in Ross under the due process and uniform operation of laws clauses also applies in this case. Laney's position as a nurse practitioner does not alter either the standards of review or the statutory objectives upon which we based our analysis in Ross, and Bott does not present any arguments that we did not consider in that case. Therefore, we reverse the trial court's judgment in favor of Bott on the issue of Laney's negligence.
Next, we examine whether governmental immunity shields DeLand, Freestone, and Laney from Bott's action under the unnecessary rigor clause of the Utah Constitution, article I, section 9. As with the negligence claim, Bott asserts that subsections 63-30-4(3) and (4) should not be applied because doing so would violate the open courts clause. We agree that these subsections should not be applied, but we do not base our conclusion upon the open courts clause. Quite simply, we decline to apply these subsections because they constitute an unreasonable regulation of Bott's article I, section 9 right to be free of unnecessary rigor. [A]ny rule or regulation in regard to the remedy which does not, under pretense of modifying or regulating it, take away or impair the right itself, cannot be regarded as beyond the proper province of legislation. 2 Thomas M. Cooley, Constitutional Limitations 756 (1927). However, the legislature's fraud or malice standard contained in subsections 63-30-4(3) and (4) impairs article I, section 9 rights because it does bar claims that would otherwise be allowed under the standards that we will subsequently discuss. Moreover, governmental immunity cannot apply where a claimant alleges that the state or a state employee violated his constitutional rights. Colman v. Utah State Land Bd., 795 P.2d 622, 630-35 (Utah 1990); Wickham v. Fisher, 629 P.2d 896, 900-01 (Utah 1981); Burdette v. State, 166 Mich.App. 406, 421 N.W.2d 185, 186 (1988); Terranova v. State, 111 Misc.2d 1089, 445 N.Y.S.2d 965, 969 (1982) (However [the state's police power] must be exercised reasonably ... and with scrupulous regard for constitutionally guaranteed rights.). But see Figueroa v. State, 61 Haw. 369, 604 P.2d 1198, 1205 (1979); Medina v. State, 871 P.2d 1379, 1386 (Okla. 1993). As the Michigan court of appeals explained: Constitutional rights serve to restrict government conduct. These rights would never serve this purpose if the state could use governmental immunity to avoid constitutional restrictions. Burdette, 421 N.W.2d at 187. Thus, we decline to apply the fraud or malice standard of subsections 63-30-4(3) and (4) to Bott's article I, section 9 claim.