Court Opinion

ID: 9673515
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:13:45.451488+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:22.468034
License: Public Domain

FINCH, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the principal opinion because in my view the doctrine of governmental immunity is not unconstitutional as denying equal protection by reason of the fact that recovery is permitted against a municipality for negligent acts but denied where the claim is against a county or the state (even though the negligent acts are similar) . The appeal in this case involves solely the question of whether the doctrine is unconstitutional and whether for that reason the court erred in dismissing plaintiffs’ petition.
However, I must state that I can appreciate why a citizen, injured as a result of negligent maintenance of the roadway surface upon which he drives his automobile, would not understand why he could recover if the roadway was a city maintained street but could not if it was a county road or a state highway. In all candor, the theory that the sovereign can do no wrong and that for that reason the state or the county should not be liable for negligent acts is not very logical or persuasive in this day and age. The Federal Government now permits recovery under its Tort Claims Act and many states have abolished the doctrine of sovereign immunity by legislative action or by judicial decision.
We have taken the position previously that a change in the rule should be by legislative action and have pointed out that difficulties can arise, as occurred in California, when the doctrine of governmental immunity is abolished by judicial decision. Smith v. Consolidated School District No. 2, Mo., 408 S.W.2d SO. If the doctrine remains in effect and in the future there is reason for us to reconsider our position, we can do so when and if the issue is presented to us again.