Court Opinion

ID: 9553566
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:32:00.083357+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:31:36.058062
License: Public Domain

Grady, J.
(dissenting) — I concur with Judge Finley upon questions (1) and (2) with reference to the liability of ap-' pellant.
My study of Rem. Rev. Stat., § 4706, leads me to the conclusion that it is ambiguous and the interpretation of it by the majority opinion is too broad. The statute was enacted in 1917. Prior to that time, school districts had adopted extensive programs with reference to athletic activities for pupils. Manual training departments in the schools had been established. Accidents were happening, and because of existing statutes school districts were being held liable. Many people believed that athletic and manual training activities should be encouraged, but in order to do so it would be necessary to relieve school districts from liability to pupils who might be injured while using the instrumentalities provided therefor. Places of recreation for pupils such as parks, playgrounds, and field houses were maintained by school districts. Athletic and manual training activities were in many instances carried on at places provided other than in school buildings or on the grounds adjacent thereto. The statute does not in any way define what noncontractual acts or omissions may be said to relate to a park, playground, or field house. • It does not state whether the immunity from liability is limited to school attendants, for whom such places and facilities are provided and maintained, or whether it covers the general public or persons with whom a school district may have business or other lawful transactions in connection with the places or instrumentalities maintained.
*718A statute purporting to create an immunity from liability should be strictly construed, and in case of doubt it should be limited to the supposed evil it sought to correct. We did so when we decided the case of Stovall v. Toppenish School Dist. No. 49, 110 Wash. 97, 188 Pac. 12. In that case we said:
“It seems clear that the purpose of the legislature was to exonerate school districts from liability for an accident which occurs upon any athletic apparatus of appliance or manual training equipment which is used in connection with any park, playground, of field house, owned or maintained by the district.”
In that case, liability was based upon the fact that the pupil had been playing upon something not covered by the statute, but which was dangerous and had been negligently allowed to be and remain on the school playground by the district. I think the same principle should apply to the situation before us. The backstop is being regarded as an athletic apparatus, but the pupil was not playing upon or using it. He was on his way from the school building to the highway, and as he passed by the backstop it collapsed and injured him. I am therefore of the opinion that the statute does not apply and that the appellant should be held liable.
Schwellenbach, C. J., concurs with Grady, J.