Court Opinion

ID: 9689108
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:20:03.490247+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:44.785189
License: Public Domain

Newton, J.,
dissenting.
I find it necessary to respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. I fully agree that the rule of governmental immunity should be relaxed as it relates to the State of Nebraska. The obsoleteness of the rule was well pointed out by Justice Edwards in the case of Williams v. City of Detroit, 364 Mich. 231, 111 N. W. 2d 1, when he said, it is: “* * * an ancient rule inherited from the days of absolute monarchy which has been productive of great injustice in our courts. By so doing (eliminating the rule), we join a major trend in this country toward the righting of an age-old wrong.” Indeed, logic dictates that a person run over by a state-owned truck should have the same right to recover as one run over by a privately owned truck.
I disagree that the power to abolish the immunity doctrine in Nebraska should be exercised by the judicial *10branch of state government. It has been said that the doctrine having been originally of judicial conception should be abolished by the judiciary. Such a conclusion does not necessarily follow. It must be borne in mind that this doctrine antedates our state constitutions and that many of our state constitutions were adopted with this rule in mind. Such is the case in Nebraska.
In this state we have a constitutional provision as follows: “The state may sue and be sued, and the legislature shall provide by law in what manner and in what courts suits shall be brought.” Art. V, § 22, Constitution of Nebraska.
A majority of the states still adhere to the immunity doctrine and many of those which have abrogated it as to charitable and municipal corporations have refused to abrogate it insofar as the state is concerned. Wisconsin announced complete abrogation of the doctrine in Holytz v. City of Milwaukee, 17 Wis. 2d 26, 115 N. W. 2d 618, but I am unable to find any case in which the Wisconsin court has actually held that it was abrogated in a tort action against the state itself. In this Wisconsin case, the court, in effect, destroyed the applicability of its rule abrogating governmental immunity for tort liability by referring to the Wisconsin Constitution which provides: “The legislature shall direct by law in what manner and in what courts suit may be brought against the state.” It then went on to say: “The decision in the case at bar removes the state’s defense of nonliability for torts, but it has no effect upon the state’s sovereign right under the constitution to be sued only upon its consent.” Minnesota announced abrogation of the doctrine prospectively in Spanel v. Mounds View School Dist. No. 621, 264 Minn. 279, 118 N. W. 2d 795, but in that case specifically stated: “Nor is it our purpose to abolish sovereign immunity as to the state itself.”
A number of other states having similar constitutional provisions have likewise refused judicial abolition of the doctrine on the ground that the constitution vested *11such authority in the legislative and not the judicial branch of government. See, Wilson v. City of Cincinnati, 172 Ohio St. 303, 175 N. E. 2d 725; Bach v. Bach (Ky. App.), 288 S. W. 2d 52; Hill v. Beeler, 199 Tenn. 325, 286 S. W. 2d 868; Chumbley v. State, 183 Tenn. 467, 192 S. W. 2d 1007; United Contracting Co. v. Duby, 134 Or. 1, 292 P. 309; Schippa v. West Virginia Liquor Control Commission, 132 W. Va. 51, 53 S. E. 2d 609, 9 A. L. R. 2d 1284; Turner v. State, 27 Ark. 337.
The import of such constitutional provisions is well" summarized in 81 C. J. S'., States, § 215 a, p. 1304, wherein it is said: “Although a state’s consent to be sued in its own courts may be expressed in the state constitution, constitutional provisions authorizing or requiring the legislature to direct by law the manner and courts in which the state shall be sued are generally regarded as not being self-executing, and no suit may be maintained against the state until the legislature has properly provided therefor.” This rule has been recognized in Nebraska for many years. See, Gentry v. State, 174 Neb. 515, 118 N. W. 2d 643; McShane v. Murray, 106 Neb. 512, 184 N. W. 147; Cox v. State, 134 Neb. 751, 279 N. W. 482; Offutt Housing Co. v. County of Sarpy, 160 Neb. 320, 70 N. W. 2d 382; State ex rel. Davis v. Mortensen, 69 Neb. 376, 95 N. W. 831. It will be noted that the requirement is for the “legislature,” not the courts, to authorize suit under such constitutional provisions.
Even in many of the states which apparently do not have such constitutional provisions, the courts have held that the matter is one for legislative and not judicial action. In Simpson v. Truesdale Hospital, 338 Mass. 787, 154 N. E. 2d 357, it was said: “While as an original proposition the doctrine might not commend itself to us today, it has been firmly imbedded in our law for over three quarters of a century and we think that its ‘termination should be at legislative, rather than at judicial, hands.’ ” In In re Wolfe, 26 Ohio O. 2d 274, 187 N. E. 2d 658, it was said: “The absence of a remedy, *12however, does not authorize a court to create one. That is a project for the legislature.” In Thompson v. Druid City Hospital Board, 279 Ala. 314, 184 So. 2d 825, it was said: “Regardless of what our personal or private views might be on a matter of this kind, this court still prefers to be labeled ‘unprogressive and unenlightened’ * * * than to usurp the traditional powers and duties of the legislature. To adopt the position urged by appellant would be not only to go against the weight of authority but to do so without legislative sanction. If and when the legislature sees fit to change the existing law in Alabama, this court will perform its function in conformity thereto. Until then, we shall content ourselves with the performance of our judicial function as best we can and leave the law making function to the legislative branch.” In McNayr v. Kelly (Fla.), 184 So. 2d 428, it was said: “Extension, qualification or abolition of immunity of government executive officers from liability for libel or slander is a matter for legislative branch of government, * * * and not for courts, which, in exercise of judicial power, merely decide, in accordance with such legislative guidelines, cases which have arisen.” In Boyer v. Iowa High School Athletic Assn., 256 Iowa 337, 127 N. W. 2d 606, it was said: “* * * whether or not the state or any of its political subdivisions or governmental agencies are to be immune from liability for torts is largely a matter of public policy. The legislature, not the courts, ordinarily determines the public policy of the state. * * * Although the doctrine of governmental immunity may have been of ancient judicial origin, it has been recognized as the policy of the state by the limited action of the legislature toward relaxation. The purposes for which public funds may be expended are limited by statute. The legislature recognized and relaxed the limitation by passage of laws authorizing purchase of liability insurance covering proprietary functions and officers and employees of certain public bodies. Had the legislature favored complete *13abrogation of the immunity rule, as plaintiff contends for, it could have said so * * *. In the particulars wherein the legislature has acted we have a clear recognition of legislative responsibility for action in the field of public policy. The limited action taken shows more than mere tacit approval of the long-standing doctrine left unchanged.” To the same effect are McCoy v. Board of Regents, 196 Kan. 506, 413 P. 2d 73; and Elizabeth River Tunnel Dist. v. Beecher, 202 Va. 452, 117 S. E. 2d 685, 85 A. L. R. 2d 469.
There is one factor regarding the doctrine of governmental immunity which sometimes leads to confusion. The doctrine consists of two different and readily distinguishable principles. See 81 C. J. S., States, § 130, p. 1137, § 214, p. 1300. The first is immunity from suit, and the second, immunity from liability. The Nebraska constitutional provision, adopted when the immunity rule was universally recognized, incorporated the first principle, but not the second, in our Constitution. This left governmental agencies in the position best demonstrated by our law pertaining to counties. Section 23-101, R. R. S’. 1943, authorizes counties to “sue and be sued.” Yet Nebraska courts have always held that a county is purely a creation of the Legislature and has no powers and is charged with no duties or liabilities except such as are conferred or laid upon it by the Legislature. “Counties are not liable in damages resulting from the negligent or tortious acts of their officers in the discharge of their official duties, in the absence of a statute creating such liability.” Dawson County Irr. Co. v. Dawson County, 106 Neb. 367, 183 N. W. 655. See, also, Frickel v. Lancaster County, 115 Neb. 506, 213 N. W. 826; Stitzel v. Hitchcock County, 139 Neb. 700, 298 N. W. 555. Here we have a situation where the Legislature has waived the constitutional provision by authorizing suit against a county, but the common law doctrine of immunity from liability persists and prevents recovery.
Regarding the present case, the Legislature by passage *14of section 85-105, R. R. S. 1943, has apparently waived the constitutional provision, and the immunity of Board of Regents from suit. It did not waive this agency’s common law immunity from liability. This has now been done by the decision adhered to by a majority of the members of this court. The decision is clearly against the weight of authority and in my judgment is one best left to legislative discretion. Its effects will be widespread in that it subjects some state agencies, and all counties and municipalities, to suits of all types. A few state agencies which have not been authorized to “sue and be sued” will still be protected by the constitutional provision above mentioned; otherwise there are no restraints. If history repeats, the Nebraska Legislature will react, as have legislatures in other states where the immunity rule has been abolished by judicial rather than legislative action, with a hodgepodge of legislative acts aimed at restricting the effect of such judicial abolition. It would appear that a much more orderly approach could be obtained by permitting the Legislature to relax the immunity rule in such manner as may be deemed best in the light of wisdom, experience, public policy, and modern conditions.
In the present case, the majority opinion is based on the assumption that the Board of Regents was engaged in a “proprietary” function. Such assumption is unwarranted. How the house was acquired does not appear, but since the law of Nebraska does not authorize the Board of Regents to engage in the real estate business, it must be presumed that it was acquired in its governmental capacity. There is certainly a distinction between the renting of an isolated or single property so acquired in pursuit of its governmental functions and the engaging in a business or industrial activity of the nature generally denominated as “proprietary.” This is not a case of operation of a utility or similar enterprise by a municipal corporation.
*15I conclude that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.
White, C. J., and Carter, J., concur in dissent.