Court Opinion

ID: 9539474
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:04:48.981362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:51.079447
License: Public Domain

Weltner, Justice,
dissenting.
It is a wise axiom that a hard case can make bad law. The converse of that is equally true — hard law can make a bad case.
The tragedy here reflected came about because the City of Decatur undertook to operate a public swimming pool, which is doubtless a worthwhile endeavor. The record reflects that the city charged admission to those using the swimming pool. It does not reflect whether or not the city, at the time of the little girl’s injury, had obtained a policy of liability insurance which would be applicable to claims arising out of the operation of the pool.
Yet, that factor should be determinative of the outcome of this case.
The purpose of sovereign immunity is, of course, to protect the public body. Somewhere in the distant past, after we departed from the concept that the King can do no wrong, a public judgment was made (and has endured) that, as between an individual injured by the negligence of public agents and the members of the public body, it is better that the single citizen bear the injury than that its burden be cast upon the citizenry as a whole.
But the realities of modern life have intruded into this sovereign preserve. OCGA § 33-24-51 (a) authorizes a municipal corporation to secure and provide insurance to cover liability for damages “arising by reason of ownership, maintenance, operation, or use of any motor vehicle by the municipal corporation. . . .” OCGA § 33-24-51 (c) provides that the municipal corporation shall be liable “only for damages *782suffered while the insurance is in force but in no case in an amount exceeding the limits or the coverage of the insurance policy.”
Admittedly, this record is silent as to the existence of insurance, and the claim before us does not arise out of the operation of a motor vehicle. Yet, the statute can only be expressive of the policy that, where the reason for the rule terminates (that is, where there is insurance to cover liability), the rule itself (sovereign immunity) should terminate. Stated otherwise, when there is no jeopardy to the public treasury, the traditional choice — either unrequited damage to an individual or reparations from the public treasury — no longer need be made.
In my opinion, we would preserve both the public interest and the critical needs of this child by remanding the case to the trial court to determine whether or not there was in effect at the time of the injury a policy of liability insurance, and, given an affirmative answer, fix the extent of any liability of the city not to exceed the policy limit.