3, Redfield v. School Dist. No. 3, in Kittitas County

• Decision Date: 13 December 1907
• Citation: 48 Wash. 85,92 P. 770
• Parties: REDFIELD v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 3, IN KITTITAS COUNTY.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

92 P. 770

48 Wash. 85

REDFIELD v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 3, IN KITTITAS COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 13, 1907

Appeal from Superior Court, Kittitas County; H. B. Rigg, Judge.

Action by Mamie M. Redfield, a minor, by John J. Redfield, her guardian ad litem, against school district No. 3, in Kittitas county. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, with instructions to overrule the demurrer.

Pruyn &amp Felkner, for appellant.

Hovey &amp Hale and Graves & McDaniels, for respondent.

DUNBAR J.

This is an action against school district No. 3 in Kittitas county. The complaint alleges, in substance, that while Mamie Redfield, a minor, was attending the public school in said district in the public schoolhouse where she had a right to be as a student of the public schools, the schoolroom was heated by a furnace; that there was a register in the floor of said schoolroom through which the heat of said furnace would come into said room and heat the same, and when the said furnace was fired the district, and its agents servants, teachers, and employés, carelessly and negligently kept and maintained upon said register a large metal bucket of the capacity of more than three gallons, and caused said bucket to be kept nearly full of water; that, by reason of the heat from said register, the water in the bucket was kept scalding hot; that the register was in or near the center of the schoolroom, and said bucket was carelessly and negligently kept and left by the defendant and its agents, servants, teachers, and employés, wholly unguarded and unprotected in any manner whatever and was liable at any time to be upset and overturned, and avers that on or about the 9th day of January, 1906, said bucket full of scalding water was upset and overturned, without any fault of the plaintiff, said Mamie Redfield, and that the scalding water from the bucket ran over the legs and feet and lower part of the body of the said Mamie Redfield and injured her in the manner described in the complaint. To this complaint the defendant district filed a general demurrer. The court sustained the demurrer upon the ground that the plaintiff had no right of action against the district. The cause was dismissed, judgment entered for costs, and appeal followed.

It will be seen that the only question for determination is whether a school district in this state is liable for the negligent acts or omissions of its officers and agents in the performance of their duties. It may be conceded that school districts are involuntary corporations, organized, not for profit or gain, but solely for the public benefit, and as a means of carrying out the scheme of the state to educate its citizens. The same thing, however, may be said of cities and counties, though their objects and purposes are different and their powers are not so limited as the powers of school districts. This, however, is simply a matter of degree. They are all formed for the benefit of the public, and not as money-making corporations, and all have delegated governmental functions to perform. It is contended by the respondent that it appears from the averments of the complaint that the agents of the school district in question were performing governmental functions, and that, under the great weight of authority, the corporation is not liable, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for the negligent acts or omissions of its officers or agents and to sustain this contention many adjudicated cases, as well as the announcement of text-writers to that effect, are cited. We have examined all of these authorities, and it may, we think, be conceded that in the main they correctly state the law so far as the weight of authority is concerned, though it must be admitted that many of the distinctions which are made between the performance of governmental duty and duties which are not considered governmental are exceedingly filmy, and frequently seem to be distinctions without difference. The citation from volume 5, § 5839, Thompson on Negligence, to the effect that: 'In the construction and reparation of a public schoolhouse, a municipal corporation is deemed to act in the discharge of a public or governmental duty, and not as a private corporation. It is therefore not liable in damages for an injury proceeding from the fact that it has negligently constructed a schoolhouse or allowed it to become dangerously defective, as where, through the defective insulation of a lightning rod on a schoolhouse, a pupil is struck by lightning; or where, by reason of a defective heating apparatus in a public schoolhouse, a pupil is burned and scalded'--which seems to be exactly in point, like the other authorities...