Court Opinion

ID: 9787707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:22:36.200374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:59.719055
License: Public Domain

HOWE, Chief Justice:
concurring in the result.
182 I concur in the remand for the purposes stated in the summary. I join in holding that section 63-80-34 is constitutional. In Payne v. Myers, 743 P.2d 186 (Utah 1987), we held that the 1978 amendment to section 63-80-4, which abrogated the right of an injured person to sue a state employee for negligence, did not violate article I, section 11 because the injured person was given the right to sue the state for the employee's negligence. Now, the plaintiffs in the instant case contend that that substitution is not an effective and reasonable alternative because the state's Hability is capped as provided in section 63-30-84 at $250,000 for any one plaintiff. Plaintiffs argue this despite McCorvey v. State Department of Transportation, 868 P.2d 41 (Utah 1993), where we held that the damage cap did not violate article I, section 11, nor the due process clause or the uniform operation of laws clause in the Utah Constitution.
¶83 The Supreme Court of Oregon, in construing that state's open courts provision, which is almost identical to Utah's, held in Mattson v. Astoria, 39 Or. 577, 65 P. 1066 (1901), that the legislature may modify the remedy and former procedure and attach conditions precedent to the exercise of the right without violating the open courts provision. Thus the legislature should be accorded broad discretion in providing an alternative remedy. I believe that a $250,000 judgment against the state is an effective and reasonable substitution for a possibly greater judgment against a state employee. *639I say this because experience has shown that large judgments against state employees for their negligence are often uncollectible. Typically, the employees have no insurance coverage for such a risk, have few personal unexempt assets, and are forced to seek a discharge of the judgment against them in bankruptey. While the state currently indemnifies state employees, the legislature could repeal the statute providing for indemnification if large judgments against employees become burdensome to the state. A plaintiff who recovers a judgment against the state under our immunity act faces none of those problems of collecti-bility. In my opinion, the substitution of remedies is effective and reasonable.
¶84 Justice RUSSON concurs in Chief Justice HOWE's concurring in the result opinion.