Court Opinion

ID: 9528801
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:44:09.076901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:21.110748
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Pringle
dissenting:
I most respectfully dissent.
In my view, the action here is premature. In my opinion, this Court has laid down the doctrine that in this State charitable immunity is not immunity from suit or liability for tort, but only a recognition that trust funds cannot be seized upon by execution nor appropriated to the satisfaction of tort liability. Michard v. Stratton, 144 Colo. 251, 355 P.2d 1078; St. Luke’s Hospital Ass’n. v. Long, 125 Colo. 25, 240 P.2d 917.
In addition, I would overrule entirely and prospectively the doctrine of charitable immunity in this State. My views are expressed in the following cases which overruled earlier cases espousing the doctrine of charitable immunity in those states: Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hosp., 33 Ill.2d 326, 211 N.E.2d *47253; Ray v. Tucson Medical Center, 72 Ariz. 22, 230 P.2d 220; Haynes v. Presbyterian Hosp. Ass’n., 241 Iowa 1269, 45 N.W.2d 151; Noel v. Menninger Foundation, 175 Kan. 751, 267 P.2d 934; Parker v. Port Huron Hosp., 361 Mich. 1, 105 N.W.2d 1; Bing v. Thunig, 2 N.Y.2d 656, 163 N.Y.S. 2d 3, 143 N.E.2d 3; Flagiello v. Pennsylvania Hosp., 417 Pa. 486, 208 A.2d 193; Hungerford v. Portland Sanitarium & Benevolent Ass’n., 235 Ore. 412, 384 P.2d 1009; Friend v. Cove Methodist Church, Inc., 65 Wash.2d 174, 396 P.2d 546.
There is no need to lengthen the reports by citing at length from these cases ideas which are not original with me.