Court Opinion

ID: 9540373
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:15:13.842625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:05.618082
License: Public Domain

WADE, Justice
(dissenting).
Generally, I concur with the views expressed by Mr. Justice Wolfe. I am inclined to believe that the entire •doctrine of sovereign immunity is inconsistent with justice and correct principles and on that ground I do not agree with the decision in the prevailing opinion. However, in this case we are limited in our decision to the controlling facts here presented. Here we are concemd only with a case of negligence and as far as cases of this .kind are concerned, I think that the doctrine of immunity *593has no application. There have probably been doctrines .announced in the past by this court under which the plaintiff in this case would be entitled to succeed without overruling the entire doctrine of sovereign immunity. I do not think we are now in a position to determine the limits or extent to which we would go in other types of cases.
There may be situations where public employees, and officers are really looking after their own interests although ostensibly acting for the public where it would not be in the public interests to make the public liable for their negligence. Certaintly there are cases where the doctrine of sovereign immunity is applicable to cases involving property rights as well as to liability for personal injuries, where the actions of interested parties have been influenced by court decisions. I therefore express no opinion as to how far we should overrule the doctrine. But I do think that it should be held to have no application to the facts of this case.