Bank v. Brainerd School District

• Citation: 49 Minn. 106
• Parties: CHARLES BANK <I>vs.</I> BRAINERD SCHOOL DISTRICT.
• Decision Date: 15 March 1892
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

Page 106

49 Minn. 106

CHARLES BANK vs. BRAINERD SCHOOL DISTRICT.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Argued by appellant, submitted on brief by respondent, January 22, 1892.

Decided March 15, 1892.

Appeal by plaintiff, Charles Bank, from an order of the District Court, Crow Wing County, Holland, J., made September 25, 1891, directing judgment to be entered on the pleadings in favor of the defendant, Brainerd School District.

The plaintiff's son Frederick, eight years old, while at play on the schoolgrounds about the Lowell Schoolhouse in Brainerd, fell and broke his leg. The complaint stated that defendant negligently allowed to remain in the playground two willow stumps three inches high and six inches apart at the ground, but near together at the top, dry, solid, and firmly set. That the boy while at play with other scholars caught his left foot between the two stumps and fell, twisting his ankle, and breaking the bones of his leg, and was so injured that his leg was amputated just below the knee. The father was plaintiff pursuant to 1878 G. S. ch. 66, § 34, and he prayed judgment for $20,000 damages suffered by his child.

The School District by answer admitted that it had possession and control of the school building and grounds and that plaintiff's son attended the school and accidentally fell and was hurt; and denied all else. The action came to trial September 25, 1891, when the court, on motion of defendant, dismissed it and ordered judgment for defendant upon the pleadings on the ground that school districts in this state are not liable in actions of this character. The plaintiff appealed from the order. The question whether this was an appealable order was not raised in this court. Croft v. Miller, 26 Minn. 317.

Molyneaux & Peterson, for appellant.

W. S. McClenahan and W. H. Mantor, for respondent.

VANDERBURGH, J.

By Sp. Laws 1881, ch. 134, the defendant, Brainerd School District, was made the successor of an independent school district embracing the same territory, and was made subject to the general laws of the state governing independent school districts, and for the purposes of this case must be treated as an ordinary independent school district.

Such districts are a part of the public educational system of the state, established in pursuance of the Constitution, art. 8, § 1, which makes it the duty of the legislature to establish a general and uniform system of public schools.

The defendant school district stands on the same footing, as a part of the educational system of the state, as school districts and independent districts. Board of Ed. of Sauk Centre v. Moore, 17 Minn. 412, (Gil. 391.)

They are all made bodies corporate, with limited powers, for the more convenient and effectual exercise of the public duties devolved upon them, and to promote the object of their creation and organization.

In the case just cited it is, in substance, said, speaking of a district created by special act: The management of the public schools is one branch of the state government, for which, within the limits of the district, they (such schools) are incorporated. The school districts declared by the general law to be bodies corporate are quasi corporations, invested with corporate powers sub modo, and for a few specified purposes only. The object is the control and management of the public schools within a certain territory. They therefore stand on the same footing as counties and towns in respect to liability to individuals for the breach of official duty by their officers. And in this state the rule is well settled that neither counties nor towns are so liable for mere neglect or nonfeasance in failing to make repairs. In Dosdall v. Olmsted Co., 30 Minn. 96, (14 N. W. Rep. 458,) it was held that the defendant was not liable for an injury resulting to plaintiff from a failure to keep the county property in repair. And in Altnow v. Town of Sibley, 30 Minn. 189, (14 N. W. Rep. 877,) where an action was brought against a town for neglect to keep a highway in repair, it was held, following the great weight of authority, that no such liability exists, unless by express statut...