Court Opinion

ID: 9853653
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:51:44.518917+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:58.409485
License: Public Domain

ELLETT, Chief Justice
(concurring and dissenting).
I concur in holding that the State of Utah and the Utah Board of Corrections are immune from suit; however, I disagree with that part of the decision which permits the cause to continue against the individual defendants.
The case of Sheffied v. Turner1 is similar to the instant matter. There the warden of the prison was sued because another prisoner stabbed the plaintiff causing the loss of sight in one eye. The claim there was made that the warden was not entitled to sovereign immunity. However, in holding that he was, this Court said:
*95Upon our consideration of the various aspects of the problem and an examination of the authorities which have dealt with it, it is our opinion that in a situation such as this, where one inmate has injured another, the warden and other prison officers are protected by the doctrine of sovereign immunity against claims of negligence so long as they are acting in good faith and within the scope of their duties, and that they could not be held liable unless they were guilty of some conduct which transcended the bounds of good faith performance of their duty by a wilful or malicious wrongful act which they know or should know would result in injury.
In the case of Obray v. Malmberg2 the plaintiff sued the sheriff for failure to investigate a burglary of plaintiffs store. This Court, in affirming the dismissal of the complaint by the trial court, said:
Aside from plaintiff’s points on appeal which we think are not dispositive,, we believe that defendants’ contention that failure by a public sheriff to investigate a crime claimed by an individual to have been committed, ordinarily is a matter of judgment and discretion, not actionable or compensable, and not pursuable by an individual since the public official’s duty is to the public, — he being accountable to and removable in a proper proceeding, by the public.
The case of Anderson Investment Corp. v. State, et al.3 was one where individual members of the State Road Commission were sued. The trial court dismissed the complaint and the Supreme Court affirmed, saying:
Members of a state commission will be liable for their torts if committed not in the course of their official duties to the same extent as will any other person, but here these commissioners were in the performance of their duties in the exercise of the police power of the State to better provide for the orderly flow of traffic upon the highways of this State. They are thus given the same immunity from suit as is given to the State of Utah or to its commissions.
The case of Roosendaal Construction v. Holman4 was a case wherein the members of the State Tax Commission were sued by the plaintiff therein. The trial court dismissed the complaint and this Court affirmed, saying:
It appears from the record in this case that the defendants in the matters herein complained of by the plaintiff were pursuing their duties in the collection of excise taxes the defendants claim to be due the State. It also appears that the acts complained of were performed in good faith by the defendants and within the statutory authority granted to them. The ruling of the court below that the defendants are not subject to a suit for damages in their private'capacities is correct.
The facts of the instant matter clearly show that the appellants were acting in good faith and within their duties in performing an operation requested by the inmate and one which, by improving his appearance would have tended to better prepare him for an earlier parole from prison and an improved chance of becoming a law-abiding citizen.
Section 63-30-10(10) cited in the prevailing opinion clearly states that governmental immunity is not waived when the cause “arises out of the incarceration of any person in any state prison . . . ”.
The deceased inmate was incarcerated in the Utah State Prison. Medical treatment and psychiatric care for inmates are just as much a part of the prison routine as are the feeding and sheltering of those inmates. It is all done with a view of making law-abiding citizens out of criminals.
I think the judgment of the trial court was made pursuant to the rulings heretofore made by this Court, and it should be affirmed.
*96CROCKETT, J., concurs in the views expressed in the concurring and dissenting opinion of ELLETT, C. J.

. 21 Utah 2d 314, 317, 445 P.2d 367, 369 (1968).

. 26 Utah 2d 17, 19, 484 P.2d 160, 162 (1971).

. 28 Utah 2d 379, 382, 503 P.2d 144, 147 (1972).

.28 Utah 2d 396, 399, 503 P.2d 446, 448 (1972).