Court Opinion

ID: 9699990
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:04:35.836641+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:02.314610
License: Public Domain

RENTTO, P. J.
(dissenting).
I dissent. While I go along with the .majority in its. conclusion that the activity here involved is beyond the pale of governmental immunity, I part company with them on the liability of the city in this case. This record does not show that the defendant city had availed itself *333on the provisions of SDC Supp. 45:32 or created the recreation board provided for in that act. To the contrary it leaves the definite impression that the recreational council which used the police rifle range for recreational purposes was a private group having no official connection with the c'ity.
In my view the Chief of Police has no authority to put the city into the recreation business. It may well be that if by attempting to do so he creates a dangerous situation in property belonging to the city, of which the city has notice, that it might be liable because of its failure to remedy such hazard. But this case was not brought or tried on that theory. While the evidence would warrant holding that the city had at least constructive notice that the police rifle range had been used for target shooting for several years by others than members of the police force with the permission of the chief, the occasion on which this death occurred was the first time any youngsters without supervision had been permitted to use it. I would reverse.