Court Opinion

ID: 9657900
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:40:48.068317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:48.841199
License: Public Domain

Hallows, C. J.
(concurring). The majority opinion denies subrogation on the grounds: (1) That the statute was not based upon any fault of the city and, therefore, subrogation does not lie; and (2) that it would be unjust to allow subrogation against the city because an insurance company in a sense would be recouping its loss from *340its insured. I think the statute is based upon negligence of the city and upon its responsibility and duty to maintain law and order, and this underlying philosophy is not outmoded. However, I would deny subrogation on the sole ground an insurance company has a right of subrogation against those persons directly causing the damage and it is not good public policy for a court of equity to grant subrogation against the city which is only passively negligent and additionally liable by statute.