Opinion ID: 1653218
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: what is a public entity for purposes of sovereign immunity?

Text: Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in granting TMC's Motion for JNOV and in holding that TMC is a public entity under section 537.600 and, therefore, entitled to sovereign immunity from tort liability. Prior to 1962, when the City owned and operated the hospital known as Kansas City General Hospital, this Court held that the hospital had sovereign immunity from tort liability. See Zummo v. Kansas City, 285 Mo. 222, 225 S.W. 934 (Mo.1920). Zummo involved the hospital that was the predecessor of both KCGHMC and TMC. The issue in Zummo was straightforward because the city operated the hospital; by the same token, Zummo offers little or no precedent on the issue of whether TMC, the not-for-profit corporation that was created by the incorporation and restructuring described above, is the type of entity that the legislature protects with sovereign immunity. This Court abolished sovereign immunity in Jones v. State Highway Comm'n, 557 S.W.2d 225 (Mo. banc 1977). The legislature, however, restored sovereign immunity by enacting sections 537.600 through 537.650, RSMo 1986 and Supp. 1991. Section 537.600 specifically restored sovereign immunity as it existed prior to Jones (prior to September 12, 1977). That statute provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Such sovereign or governmental tort immunity as existed at common law in this state prior to September 12, 1977, except to the extent waived, abrogated or modified by statutes in effect prior to that date, shall remain in full force and effect; except that, the immunity of the public entity from liability and suit for compensatory damages for negligent acts or omissions is hereby expressly waived in the following instances: .... § 537.600.1, RSMo Supp. 1991 (emphasis added) (exceptions omitted). Section 537.600 introduced the phrase public entity without defining it. Section 537.600.3 contains a partial definition related to a multi-state compact agency not relevant to the present discussion. The fact that the legislature partially defined the term public entity in 1989, however, signifies that this term is intended to encompass the entities that will be protected under the statute. In turn, based upon the legislative history, this statute protects public entities that were protected under the sovereign immunity cases prior to September 12, 1977. Section 537.700.2(3), RSMo 1986, specifically defines public entity for purposes of sections 537.700 to 537.755, RSMo 1986 and Supp.1991, related to risk management for public entities. Section 537.745.1, RSMo 1986, provides that the liability of public entities under sections 537.700 to 537.755 shall be the same as the liability of public entities under the sovereign immunity statute. Thus, the definition of public entity in section 537.700.2(3) may be helpful in deciding the scope of public entities under section 537.600. Section 537.700.2(3) provides as follows: [T]he following words and terms ... mean: