Court Opinion

ID: 9675657
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:00:57.364084+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:36.589086
License: Public Domain

BARDGETT, Chief Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in that part of the opinion which reverses ánd remands the judgment of dismissal as to Defendants Hoskins and Kos-chner and dissent as to that portion of the opinion that affirms the dismissal as to the University City Public School District.
I agree that Jones v. State Highway Commission, 557 S.W.2d 225 (Mo.banc 1977), does not have retroactive application and should not be accorded the same. The question of whether the purchase of liability insurance by school districts ought to be construed as a waiver or permission to sue for those matters that allegedly constitute negligent conduct resulting in injury to a student has been considered before. However, because the issue appears in this case, I feel it is not inappropriate for me to simply reiterate my position as stated in the dissent in Kuhn v. Ladue School District, 589 S.W.2d 281 (Mo.banc 1979). I believe the prior expenditure of public funds for the purchase of tort liability insurance should be recognized and the public given the full benefit of the expenditure by allowing the action to proceed. This would not permit a verdict or judgment in excess of the limits stated in the policy, but would permit the insured, the students and the public to have the full benefit of the policy which was purchased with public funds.
Therefore, I concur in part and dissent in part in the principal opinion in this case.