Court Opinion

ID: 9689110
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:20:03.500591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:44.788141
License: Public Domain

Carter, J.,
dissenting.
I concur fully with the dissent filed by Newton, J. The concurring opinion filed by McC'own, J., fails to distinguish between a business enterprise in competition with private business and transactions that are incidental only to the administration of governmental power. Many incidental acts of government are also done by private persons. It is completely’ illogical to say that general governmental powers shall be separated into distinct acts necessary to this accomplishment of the purpose-of the grant of governmental authority and hold that those which may be performed by private persons are beyond the - reach of the sovereign immunity doctrine. It is *19fundamental that the state or its subdivisions may not engage in a proprietary business without legislative authority.
The immunity of the state for the torts of its agents and employees rests on a much broader doctrine. It involves the right of the sovereign authority to be free of such liability except to the extent that it is waived or abrogated by the Legislature, the branch of government which determines matters of public policy. The Legislature has not waived or abrogated its immunity for tort, nor has it said in what manner and in what courts actions for tort may be brought against the state as required by Article V, section 22, Constitution of Nebraska.
The doctrine of sovereign immunity has been the law of the land in state and federal governments since our constitutional system of government has been established. It is true that many text and review writers have complained of the inequities of the doctrine and have advocated its abandonment or limitation, but in almost every instance they have conceded that such action is legislative and not judicial. I am firmly convinced that the majority opinion exercises a legislative function by judicial fiat.
The courts of this country have had the application of the doctrine before them on numerous occasions. In all the reported decisions no court has ever said, so far as I have been able to find, that a factual situation such as we have here, comes within the proprietary rule. The majority opinion relies upon Pintek v. County of Allegheny, 186 Pa. Super. 366, 142 A. 2d 296, an inferior court decision, to sustain its holding. But the holding of that court is based on a Pennsylvania statute authorizing the operation and a factual situation bearing no resemblance to the present case. The concurring opinion does not cite a single case to support it, because there are none to support it. It hardly seems possible that all of the learned judges that have served over the *20years on the appellate courts of this country could have overlooked so simple an expedient as the proprietary principle to escape the reach of the sovereign immunity doctrine. The long establishment of the principle and the dearth of authority to support its judicial abrogation, whether on the theory of its being a proprietary function as herein defined or otherwise, adds force to the view that the majority opinion is an encroachment on the powers of the Legislature. It is the function of courts to declare the law as it is and not as they would like to have it. Judicial restraint should be meticulously exercised in guarding against violation of the division of powers provision of the Constitution. This court ought, at least, to impose upon itself the same restraints that it imposes upon the other divisions of government by seeing to it that no claimed equity, however appealing it may be, infringes upon this fundamental principle of the Constitution.
Here the Legislature has not authorized the Board of Regents to enter into a proprietary business, nor has the Legislature abrogated or limited the immunity of the Board of Regents from tort, or provided in what manner and in what courts such suits shall be brought. These failures alone defeat the plaintiff’s claim.
White, C. J., and Newton, J., join in this dissent.