Collins v. Memorial Hospital of Sheridan County

COLLINS, Appellant Patricia below), (Plaintiff SHERIDAN HOSPITAL OF

MEMORIAL al., Appellees COUNTY, Wyoming, et below).

(Defendants No. 4262. William K. Archibald of Holstedt & Ar- Wyoming. chibald, Sheridan, Sandall, Moses & Ca- May van, Mont., Billings, appellant (plain- tiff below). Rehearing Denied June Cardine, Reeves

Weston W. Vlastos Reeves, Casper, appellees (defend- & below). ants PARKER, Before J., McEWAN, C. GUTHRIE, McINTYRE, and Mc- CLINTOCK, JJ. Mr. delivered GUTHRIE

opinion of the court. complaint, Plaintiff her filed seek ing damages personal injuries, joining Hospital County, Memorial of Sheridan thereof, employee Bertha Compa Paul Insurance St. Fire & Marine ny, personаl injuries sustained on No paying vember while she was patient hospital. at the Bertha Anderson employee attending plaintiff was the Paul is when this accident occurred St. having issued a hospital, the insurer of the Hospital liability policy Memorial to it. sum filed motions for Anderson both mary upon the judgments herein based municipal immunity, ground of sovereign judgment final and the court entered thereon ‍​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‍in of thesе defendants but favor summary judgment insofar overruled the as the suit Paul was concerned. St. Although ruling on appellant seeks a whether this suit solely against maintained St. Paul on theory third-party on the bene ficiary, presented is not be cause there is appealable order entered in this suit. Insofar as Paul is con St. improper cerned it in this case to consider the matter of its in a direct aсtion. adjudicate policy trial court sustained the mo benefit under this and liability thereby. summary judgment on behalf of their own

tions for hospital and defendants any This situation raise factual trial court ruling obligatory general municipal sovereign of by the cases of Maffei v. Incor virtue of only the as such but effect of Kemmerer, Wyo. porated Town of procurement coverage of 808, rehеaring denied 340 P.2d policy general and the of munici- of Comm and Davis v. Board pal in will no consid- manner Carbon, Wyo., of of issioners re- ered herein. The factual situation and factual P.2d 21. From the framework by with vealed the record demonstrates carefully it is of this when situation inherent, this clarity and what the vice viewed, apparent that the rule the result of writer views as too-broad extension confusing and unde Maffei results in a of in retro- general this This court doctrine. only party sirable situation and spect may guilty a deci- well have been any in benefited there will be manner fraught unfairness sion which with both Paul, the insurance carrier. by is St. taxpayers. and to It seems to claimants tend- proper give the modern to notice of in have heretofore held Gonzales We ency application to and restrict the limit Service, Wyo., 494 P. Personal Collection Myers municipal sovereign immunity, 201, 206, power of the trustees that the Mo., Palmyra, 355 S.W.2d county hospital general board are aof 92 A.L.R.2d 791. op power manage, to quite broad with legislative in reaction to hospital oper erate, and its and control the in as Maffei decided 1959 was immediate ations, 18-318, W.S.1957, along with the § autho- we find that 1961the hospital power to sue and be sued. municipalities carry liability insur- rized to and asserted having board exercised recovery the limitation that ance with pur power buy having to be had to the limits of should exceed same, spent public having chased the to such cities towns and forbade obligated public funds the sum funds or plead governmental under these $5,000, approximately indeed be would W.S.1957, circumstances, 15.1-4, C.1965. § at peculiar position if it would now in a recognition of This is solid evidence of the that it tempt its own behalf to assert on injustice holding and it is dif- of such right had such to insurance: legislative bodies ficult to believe our arbitrarily and that effect had injustices only seek to such remove expenditure proper authority without made by some in- have been suffered after funds, and therеafter as without bystander, signalling have been nocent signment any cogent requested disapproval application immunity.1 Paul this claim St. to assert clearly in- by their several enactments The inference clear from the use of rule and dicating disapproval their of this response “agrees” word that this was protection by liability insurance is request by Paul. It is hard to recon St. against public policy. justice, cile fairness after the ex penditure funds, board sit There is a further rather anomalous reserve of trustees of the should hospi allowed uation in our statutes which arbitrary right to select those who pur by hospital districts operated tals request by 1. This evidenced that certain letter Action No. Fourth lins Civil January 16, 1973, County, Wyoming. dated as follows: District Sheridan Judicial truly, “Dear Mr. Oardine: “Yours “The Board of Trustees action Yale YALE, John Owen “/s/ “JOHN August meeting agrees you 10th as our at- OWEN torneys govern- should assert the defense of “Administrator” mental claim of Patricia Col- chase prior date of coverage without harm to person or 35-136.7, accident, W.S.1957, 1973 institution. § Cum.Supp. After accident and Particularly appropriate would it seem enactment, 18-323.7, legislative W.S. § when the root doctrine of immu- Cum.Supр., county hospitals, as nity itself has been subject vigorous herein, defendant were so authorized. many jurisdictions having abro- attacks— is impossible imagine a more and unfair gated it. ridiculous upon situation than that the It may be supe- conceded that numerical day oper same in governmentally various riority supports the rule of the Maffei hospitals ated Wyoming patient in in one case, but blind unquеstioning acceptance hospital class protection would have and a logic without critical of examination the patient in another class would and basis for such cases can become a protection. this, no It along is with form judicial responsibility of evasion of situations, the other factual that makes this appellate and reduce an court the func- writer ripe believe that the time is now tion mere scorekeeper. a close examination of the doctrine of possible preoccupation It is of the Maffei Davis, and which hold that munici in ques- court the Maffei with the case pal sovereign immunity cannot be waived immunity may tion sovereign of by the carrying liability of insurance ab very have obscured a narrow specific legislаtive sence of authority. may is same which well legislature sought here, purchase be reconsidered whether part by restrict this rule the enactment liability of insurance and the of several This is a creat statutes.2 court such liability might well be consid- ed lay rule and can claim basis no immunity. par- ered a waiver of such It is of ancient origins. important ticularly in this writer’s view The writer been at has oft odds with grеat number of these cases theory an help that when courts create theory which this rests written dur- were “Aegean stable” the sole has the ing liability a time insurance be- before responsibility cleaning up the mess recognized ordinary came an life fact of in this case defeat we would the ends of employed by our large number of justice by requiring specific legislative ac- citizens for their with tion in recovery may every instance where understanding purpose thereof. sought. freely The writer concedes Maffei, being the root this discussion importance, necessity, and strength although directed at that must be con- case doctrine of stare decisis and including wherein criti- strued as Davis precedents areas which or cal examination of this rule was made. stability law, thrеaten the and which hospital and An- the defendants When may might conceivably interfere with are, case, protected by lia- as in this derson is rights, vested unable to but utilize bility insurance, no reason for there is justification doctrine as for the continu- application of or continued invocation improper ance of an unfair and which maxim, ratione legal cessante rule.3 The operates to the detriment of who those lex, certainly applicable. legis ipsa cessat injury suffer insti- tortious the authorities tutions and be ameliorated at A close examination of which respec- subsequent in their least to the extent of the treatment 35-136.7, supra, 21.1-13, W.S.1957, interspousal lia- 2. if Sections the common-law loss, 14, W.S.1957, bility McKin- contain sections insurance would cover 21.1— Wyo. 204, ney McKinney, P.2d but authorize the of in- waiver Lynwood seq.; Park Dis- Decatur surance. et Ill.App.2d 431, trict, suggests opinion Blume, 3. See as a basis same rationale for abolition relies Maffei Flowers v. Board Commissioners jurisdictions upon which tive 668, 168 Vanderburgh, 240 Ind. authority proposition persuasive as tort different v. rectly fact nicipal corporations ion. The Dist. No. 84 School 104 modern and of Wisconsin N.W.2d that there can entire doctrine itly pality’s tive of and in itself illustrative Pohland v. City Green 27 N.W.2d reversed F.Supp. authority is most that immunity, Spanel v. Mounds View abolished District No. immunity except 618, 625, today Bay, 18 the result should Interestingly, standing Milwaukee, in the case (Wabasso, 187, fairest prospectively be no because of tort the doctrine of is not enhanced Wis.2d of Rittmiller 621, a most in the case of Sheyboygan, trend. The waiver enlightening, and directly and Minn.), of Marshall v. 264 Minn. 17 Wis.2d immunity for Minnesota 496, 118 N.W.2d specific legisla- scholarly abrogated of a munici- N.E.2d what D.C.Minn., completely 251 Wis. 279, case 26, has by the Holytz implic- School opin- mu- 118 115 di- that on cific question passed upon as: the ion. and later in the ent proves 153 tion The nity, ‍​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‍“ * general public against of suit. tion ance, “ so * principle S.W.2d municipality’s doing legislative liable ^[*] principle, as a * Hummer cited casе Wallace v. page 224, 227: the insurance carrier waives based on Board of * * * by procuring appropriate insur- in tort 916 that court 915, Is views that there can ‘If a authority, for opinion specifically insofar as cannot Education, ? immunity expressed sees * * *” defense fit to be Board poses it is authority for negligence 287 protect the the of Educa- inconsist- the event Ky. by waiver Laurel rеason immu- disap- single func- opin- spe- 454, in Ritt- interest that 795. It N.W.2d opinion The in Maffei calls attention to driver miller suit was allowed a only the fact support case cited policy in without question under the that was the contention such by except that he was covered discussion of insurance Ro waived was light oft-re- policy. This of the Butler, 125, gers v. 92 170 Tenn. S.W.2d peated that inures to many cases 414. There are such from in a covered activi- engaged servant while Knoxville, jurisdiction, Bailey v. further ty. Supreme Minnesota 3, D.C.Tenn., many that F.Supp. 5 — so 113 authority does not Rittmiller as styled has Rule.” this been the “Tennessee municipality a proposition for the Although opinion this earlier discusses immunity from its not waive Community case of Thomas v. Broadlands 201, this liability, pointing Ill.App. tort out case was Consol. Dist. 348 School No. 567, 636, 640, 109 in anоther con N.E.2d point merely considered text, this writer views that case as authori statutory provisions, al- under certain ty proposition. same taking though opinion remarks that appeared context statement out of discovery pro- Although it involves a ap- forceful ceeding, the case of Christie Board plicable, Schoening Regents Avia- University Michigan, v. United 364 States 202, 30, 31, Underwriters, Mich. 111 N.W.2d contains Inc., 120 tion 265 Minn. compelling, discussion which is most 864. The Indiana N.W.2d necessity explore states the the ultimate eroded, de- seriously Court has if not decisive ás follows: stroyed, force of Hummer v. School “ * * * Ind.App. City, of Hartford Whether resolution 891, by from acquire and maintain defendant Board to

1 n “ * * * as a operates Finally it would liability insurance public premi- dictates waive that where of law matter оbligation.” paid ums insurer’s are out extent enlightened protect persons rule. funds to injured as the as a re- cites this therein is most sult appearing negligence insured, summarization at company foreclosed, 32: compelling, as follows 111 N.W.2d should be estopped prevented asserting point first the Board’s deter- “The —that defense of the set sort forth here.” acquire carry liability mination to Also, insurance removes the historic reason see Schoening v. United States Avia tion immunity requires no extended Underwriters, Inc., supra, 120 — N.W. analysis. yet pick free to We Geislinger v. Village of Wat kins, My among choose authorities extant. Minn. N.W.2d choice, Because presently necessary if it were this record leaves little doubt choose, ‘enlightened’ would be with the defense originated in the mind of visibly —and As growing- minority. the insurance company we be — shows, particular the cited annotation nu- lieve there is why the more principle position merous apply. principle authorities adhere to should bodies, spent public clearly recognized having in the case of Vendrell money liability protection thereby v. School District in- No. 26C Coun Malheur liability; ty, 282, 291, cur game in fact if although Or. by design unjustly that enriches the in- case arises under a authorizing statute purchase surer carrying liability for a there is risk where insurance but not authorities, ‘enlightened’ requiring no risk. Other it. repeat, pursue opposite

I and more assigned Various reasons have been for explicable view.” perpetuation munici- of the doctrine of pal Beach Springfield, Ill.App. immunity liability 32 from for torts. 256, 436, 440, being widely summarily 177 a N.E.2d case Thоse advanced stated suit; municipality wherein a the sovereign secured an insur that is immune from policy clause, recog ance with a deductible that it is better that the individual suffer recovery holding, injury public nized a in that than inconven- however, ience; city liability city had no for and that it tends retard the to portion performance the deductible and was immune of its duties.4 It would payment from such judgmеnt only but not seem that the substantial and tenable above that amount and which within the maintenance of this doctrine was policy applicable public protection limits. The is the funds or the theory.”5 words therein: so-called “trust fund Nor payment funds, Fe, 4. Barker v. to the of Santa N.M. this case school 47 justification damage A.L.B.. claims. There is no Annotation immunity pub- effectively destroys if the which rather thesе or reason for absolute protected. lic Their has bases. funds are reason for the been the real historical appears immunity 5. A in Thomas both elsewhere and clear statement of absolute corpora- quasi-municipal Community v. Broadlands Dist. Illinois accorded Consol. School municipal corporations tions, similarly, Ill.App. 567, No. 109 N.E.2d governmental function. in the exercise of a 640: Liability pro- to the extent it “ * * * only justifiable reason for public funds, the reason tects the removes quasi-municipal corporations for, thus the to suit. unob- from suit tort is the sound and reasoning the Moore policy jectionable case, supra Moyle, one that is Ill. [Moore public property, protect public 81], applies equal to funds and force to prevent moneys, оf tax to the diversion If before us. funds Maffei, supra, pro- fail may consideration have been inade- given quate if might tection be we are to hold virtue of their body by properly judgment, but formed assertion of the doctrine of appellant Appel- confusion the minds tend create recover herein. lees, injured following state- apparently anticipating thought, those when the purchase appears, ment P.2d at 818: assert the of such insurance is justifiable upon grounds, summarily other “* * though even fringe employees, stated as a benefit for by stat- insurance should be authorized risk, recognizes but the citation this limited ute, as- protection cannot be the desired protection against and also as a an unex- sured, company is the insurance pected change doсtrine.6 joined as a in the action co-defendant purposes If these be the basic intended solely answer to responsible and made purchased which this rendered, or in the ab- judgment be suggested that it be limited thereto with any judgment au- joinder, sence of prop- what the court would assume rendered limited to thorized to be adjustment premium er if it is to cover moneys avail- only made reсovered only these risks. company and not able the insurance spe- for the within reasons that we otherwise.” cifically overrule the cases of Maffei and thereon, herein, in appellants reliance pur- Davis insofar as hold that the company be but joined the insurance chase not waiver action statute” cause we have no “direct immunity, up of tort at least to thе amount liability is made the insurance because coverage, judgment and reverse the recovery against their dependent upon a entered herein in favor of defendants approach is indicated and insured direct and remand seems a tacit preferable. This statement disposal conformity case for trial and the insurance recognition time expressed. with the views herein fairly escape liability company should not Judgments reversed. page this court the same and further on such re inequitability did no ‍​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‍detriment which sult. This court sees McCLINTOCK, J., participated recovery is limited to the

may arise if the argument, disqualified himself from coverage is in no manner extent of the participation. further funds, nor government recoverable from task an insurmountable to be PARKER, Chief (dissеnting). judgment, limit the for the court to so in this seems to rest case supra; Lyn Springfield, Beach v. entirely philosophical leanings of on the District, Ill.App. wood v. Decatur Park are suggestion the court and the there a serious There is 168 N.E.2d 185. inequities from the somehow which arise taxpayers as to whether de- payment coverage for insurance county by the represented County Sheridan spite governmental a defense of any board consideration received required pay.1 rea- insurer Such whether expended policy or funds for this say if re arise justifi- 1. that no detriment liability insurance, protected by T.o coverage covery to the extent is limited reason for the rule cation and rates in insurance McQuillin, the increase Also, is to overlook Munici- are removed.” holding in this (3d p. which must result 53.24, pal Corporations, Ed. § Rev.). case. Immunity Citing Minge, Prom Governmental Wyoming, Damage Rand Actions (1972). Review, 617, 634 Water Law jus- are untenable and insufficient to sons

tify the reversal of decided cases of this Louis D. COSCO, Appellant Incorporated court: Town of Maffei v. (Defendant below), Kemmerer, Wyo. 33, re- 338 P.2d hearing denied 340 P.2d Davis Wyoming, The STATE of Appellee Board of Commissioners (Plaintiff below). Carbon, Wyо., disregard No. 4296. of stare decisis. Wyoming. Court of years In recent has under- May 15, piecemeal taken to deal with certain as- pects governmental immunity and that

body than rather the court should resolve problem subject since the is within the

prerogative the electorate. Additional-

ly, any application change would be prospective

both and definite. present decision ‍​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‍will leave us in a chaos; covertly

state of suggests that

governmental immunity vulnerable by holding

then takes another bite such im-

munity is waived the insured. Under decision, in governmental no one ca-

pacity any can have reasonable assurance

as to the extent organization’s of his liabil-

ity even his will be faced own. Each possibility

with the that the courts immunity. time abolish protect

What themselves from contingency against is now used them

by calling it a “waiver.” totally equities of the situation position majority taken

opinion. Many persons engaged govern- work, particularly

mental those associated like, schools, ‍​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‍hospitals, and the serve

gratuituously or for the smallest remunera- Being

tions. uncertain of what the courts do, they procured way hopes they can in some avoid organizations perhaps to their Brimmer, A. MacPherson of John оpposite themselves. Instead the results. Golden, Rawlins, MacPherson & Larry only way Their Berryman, Student, Laramie, Senior Law themselves, protect knew to is used as appellant. an excuse to hold Is this not them liable. Brimmer, . Gen., Atty. Clarence A. Bert greatest inequities ? Ahlstrom, Jr., T. Atty. Gen., Chey- Asst. enne, appellee. urge If this court has an irresistible “Aegean clean the stable” let once and PARKER, J., Before McEWAN, C. and not innu- forthrightly for all so GUTHRIE, McINTYRE and Mc- CLINTOCK, endo. JJ.

Case Details

Case Name: Collins v. Memorial Hospital of Sheridan County

Court Name: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date Published: May 15, 1974

Citation: 521 P.2d 1339

Docket Number: 4262

Court Abbreviation: Wyo.