Court Opinion

ID: 9581795
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:18:54.145402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:15.623866
License: Public Domain

Pannell, Judge,
concurring specially. I concur in the result reached in both Divisions 1 and 2 of the opinion. It is my opinion, however, that it is immaterial in reaching the decision in this case whether or not the payment by the State was a gratuity or whether it was based upon a strong moral obligation. In neither event is any waiver of sovereign immunity or assumption of liability shown by the State; and even if a gratuity, the payment thereof upon the tort was sufficient to authorize a credit therefor upon the obligation asserted against the administrator of the estate of the tortfeasor, a former employee of the State.