*1 Musselman, D. Grow, John Musselman Orem, Watson, & plaintiffs Lynn appel- and and Diana Thelma Mad MADSEN lants. sen, infant, by Madsen, Thelma her guardian, parent Plaintiffs and natural Hansen, Gen., Robert B. Atty. G. Blaine Appellants,
and Davis, Gen., Asst. Atty. Salt Lake respondents. defendants and Utah, State Board of Cor STATE
rections, Smith, Hatch, H. Samuel Leon WILKINS, Justice: V, Tage Sponbeck through Doe and I wrongful This is a death brought action Respondents. Defendants and daughter the wife of Thomas Mad- 15215. No. sen, who died while he was at incarcerated Supreme of Utah. the Utah Prison. State appeal from an order dismissing their complaint,
Aug. 1978. ground dismissed on the that the claims are
barred the Utah Governmental Immuni- ty Act.1 In their complaint, plaintiffs that allege Madsen 1, 1974, died March on following surgery at the Utah State hospital Prison’s facilities. states that agents and its knew that surgery and place medications would great Madsen in peril due to previously his existing physical condition, and were negligent they in that proceeded with the surgery without ade- quate equipment facilities and to care for him, failed provide adequate supervision and care for Madsen after the surgery, and further that the defendant’s agents failed neglected to examine Madsen or to summon competent help aid, medical to his being after informed other inmates that he was having difficulty breathing after the surgery. plaintiffs plead then res ipsa loquitur (which was not challenged be- low here).
Plaintiffs first contention is Court erred in dismissing their complaint argue Immunity the Governmental Act as, does plaintiffs’ claims, not bar (1) operation hospital facility at the a proprietary function; governmental (2) plaintiffs’ claims do not “arise out of” the decedent’s incarceration within the meaning of Section 63-30-10(10) of the Act. Annotated, 1953, 63-30-1, statutory seq. Code et All are to Utah Sections references amended.
93
employee
an
committed
Immunity
scope
within the
Act
Governmental
The Utah
if
employment except
injury:
of his
the
resulting
injuries
from
immunity for
waives
n
*
*
*
*
function.2
a governmental
exercise of
the
Utah,
City,
530
Greenhalgh
Payson
v.
In
(10)
any
arises out of the incarceration of
(1975),
recognized that
the
we
799
P.2d
person
prison, county
city
in
state
any
or
governmental enti-
functions of
proprietary
confinement,
jail
legal
of
place
other
the
coverage of
Act.
within the
ties are not
pertinent
the
listed
case this Court
that
In
that a
of
Plaintiffs contend
consideration
determining
in
be
factors to
considered
legislative history of the
quoted
the
above
or gov-
activity
proprietary
is
an
whether
(10)
subsection
was in-
section shows that
ernmental:
only
frivo-
prevent harassing
tended
to
activity
the
is
primary
A
one is whether
which
by prisoners,
disrupt
lous suits
general
the
for
something which is done
orderly prison
They
administration.
fur-
generally
is
re-
and which
public
governmental immunity
ther
that
contend
public responsibility.
a
Cou-
as
garded
disrepute
is
generally
held
and therefore
this,
matters considered
exception
interpret-
with
other
be
pled
narrowly
should
pecuni-
A
any special
interpretation, they suggest,
is
ed.
narrow
are whether there
also,
a
requires
close causal connection between
City;
to
whether
ary benefit
the
incarceration,
injury
the
and the
and in this
in competi-
a
such nature as
it is of
case,
injury
surgery,
the
was caused
the
enterprise.3
free
tion with
and not
the incarceration.
factors,
Considering
opera
the
these
of
Plaintiffs’
recitation
the discussion
facility must
hospital
prison
a
at the
tion of
took
senate
place
during
con-
a
function.
governmental
as
regarded
be
(10), however,
sideration of subsection
are
provide
to
responsibility
has a
The State
helpful,
is nothing
as there
therein
fulfill
prisoners,
care for its
medical
the Legislature
which would
that
.indicate
hospital
a
duty may operate
that
ment of
it
to
intended
exclude a case such as this one
pecuniary
No
bene
facilities.
prison
at the
the
operation
from
statute. The
activity;
neither
flows from such
fit
leg-
section
plain meaning of the
reflects a
patients
for
hospital compete
the
does
sovereign immunity
intent
retain
islative
to
operation
Finally, since the
hospitals.
other
injuries occurring
while the incar-
interest,
public
prison is in the
of a state
the
person
prison
cerated
is in
and under
quality
the
of our
which improve
activities
of
injury
control
the
Since this
State.5
in furtherance
system
also be
prison
must
occurred while Madsen was under the con-
public good.
operation
of
officials,
governmental
the
trol of
hospital
clearly
program.
such
entities, viz.,
the State
Utah and
Corrections, are
therefore,
Board of
both immune
turn,
a consideration of
We
Immunity
liability.
Act.
the Utah Governmental
District Court found that
dece-
next contend
the Govern-
death arose out of his incarceration
dent’s
Act is
Immunity
mental
unconstitutional
meaning
within the
of Section 63-30-
against
They
as
public policy,
applied.
10(10).
provides:
That Section
law,
system
all
argue
under our
governmental
Immunity
persons, including governmental entity
from suit of all
injury proximately
superior
employees,
should be
entities is waived for
of its
liable,
responsible,
act or
and therefore
negligent
caused
omission
Recording
Proceedings,
4.
Jan.
See
2. Section 63-30-3.
Senate.
20th, 1965,
III,
Side
Lieutenant
Part
Gover-
nor’s Office.
City, supra,
Greenhalgh
Payson
v.
at 801.
Ogden
also Ramirez
2d
See
v.
State, Utah,
Epting
5. See
reasonably. directly related to incarceration. A classification is never unreasonable or arbitrary in its inclusion or exclusion fea- ELLETT, Chief Justice (concurring and long tures as there is some basis so dissenting). the differentiation between classes or subject compared matters included as I concur in holding the State of Utah operation, provid- those excluded from its and the Utah Board of Corrections are im- ed the differentiation bears reasonable suit; however, mune from I disagree with purposes to the relation accom- part permits decision which the Mason, plished the act. 94 cause to continue against the individual de- 501, (1938). 78 P.2d fendants. exception govern- of the waiver of The case of Sheffied v. Turner1 is similar immunity injuries arising mental out of to the instant matter. There the warden the any person incarceration of in the state the was sued because prison- another prison clearly bears a reasonable relation to plaintiff er causing stabbed the loss of the legislative purpose preventing frivo- sight eye. in one The claim there was made harassing lous and against suits the State. that the warden was not entitled to sover- However,
Plaintiffs also eign immunity. contend that in holding that was, in dismissing erred he this Court said: Larsen, Utah, 314, 6. Cornwell v. (1968). P.2d 925 1. 21 Utah 2d upon highways various of this They State. Upon our consideration given immunity are thus the same examina- and an aspects problem given suit as is to the of Utah or to which have dealt the authorities tion of its commissions. it, that in a situa- opinion our it is this, inmate has where one tion such as The case of Roosendaal Construction v. another, warden and other injured Holman4 was a case wherein the members by the doc- protected officers are State Tax Commissionwere sued against sovereign immunity trine of the plaintiff therein. The trial court dis- are long they so negligence claims of missed the complaint and this Court af- scope and within the acting faith firmed, saying: duties, not be they and that could of their from the record in this case guilty were they held unless liable that the defendants the matters herein which transcended some conduct complained were pur- *4 performance faith bounds suing their in duties the collection of ex- wrong- a wilful or malicious duty cise taxes the defendants claim to be due know they know or should ful act which It also that the State. acts in injury. result complained performed of were in good faith by the defendants and within the Obray Malmberg2 v. In the case statutory authority granted to them. failure to in- the sheriff for plaintiff sued ruling of the court below that the plaintiffs store. vestigate burglary subject defendants are not to a suit for Court, affirming the dismissal of the This in damages private'capacities in their is cor- court, by the trial said: complaint rect. appeal on plaintiff’s points from Aside The facts dispositive,, clearly we think are not we instant matter show that the appellants acting were in that defendants’ contention that believe good faith and within their duties in per- investigate sheriff to by public failure forming operation requested by an the in- have crime claimed an individual to which, mate by improving ap- and one his committed, ordinarily is a matter of been pearance pre- would have tended to better discretion, judgment and not actionable pare for an earlier parole prison him compensable, pursuable by and not becoming and an chance of a law- improved public since the official’s duty individual abiding citizen. public, being is to the accountable to —he proper proceeding, by and removable in a 63-30-10(10) prevail- in the Section cited public. ing clearly governmen- states that opinion immunity tal is not waived when the cause Corp. The case of Anderson Investment v. any per- the incarceration of “arises out of State, et al.3 was one where individual . . any son in state . ”. members of the Road Commission The deceased inmate was incarcerated in were The trial court dismissed sued. affirmed, Prison. Medical treatment Utah State Supreme and the just psychiatric care for inmates are saying: part much a routine as are the will be of a state commission Members feeding sheltering of those inmates. their torts if committed not liable for making is all done with a view of law-abid- their official duties to the the course of ing citizens out of criminals. but person, extent as will other same per- were in the here these commissioners judgment I of the trial court think in the exercise pursuant rulings formance of their duties to the was made hereto- Court, power to better and it police fore made should be traffic orderly for the flow of affirmed. provide 160, 396, 399, 446, 17, 19, (1971). (1972). 4.28 Utah 2d 503 P.2d 484 P.2d
2. 26 Utah 2d 379, 382, 3. 28 Utah 2d J.,
CROCKETT, concurs the views ex-
pressed concurring and dissenting ELLETT,
opinion of C. J. CORPORATION, Corpora
COX
tion, Respondent, Plaintiff Smith, David K. Salt Lake for de- Jerry Enterprises, D DUGGER d/b/a J & appellant. fendant and Appellant. Defendant Stubbs, Byron L. Lake City, Salt No. 15269. respondent. Supreme Court of Utah. ELLETT, Justice: Chief
Aug. *5 Cox Corporation sued Jerry Dugger for damages because of a claimed breach of an $50,000. oral contract to lend The case was tried to the court which judgment rendered $50,000, in favor of Cox for the total amount money promised to be loaned. Corporation Cox claims that it need $50,000 ed option purchase to exercise an realty reason of the failure of Dug- available, ger to make the funds it lost the opportunity to secure property valuable at a allowable, bargain. damages, if be the difference between the reasonable property value of the and the amount of money required paid by the option $50,000 contract. It would not prom be the ised Dugger. Corporation that Cox has
no basis for recovery in this case. On the day December,'1970, 12th Cox, Paul J. man, single agreement entered into an one McArthur and wife whereby land owned Paul J. Cox was conveyed to the McArthurs option given with an back to him repurchase property for the sum $44,604 within date, cash 18 months from pro less rata credit for interest for any portion unused of the 18 months. herein is the Corpora- Cox tion and not Paul J. Cox. It filed its com-