Barber v. Spencer State Hosp.

• Decision Date: 29 January 1924
• Citation: 95 W.Va. 463
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: Zella Barber, Adm'x. v. Spencer State Hospital.

95 W.Va. 463

Zella Barber, Adm'x.

v.Spencer State Hospital.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted January 22, 1924.

Decided January 29, 1924.

States Declaration for Wrongful Death Against Institution Under Management of Board of Control Demurrable.

Where one is employed by a state institution under the management of the Board of Control, and in the course of such employment sustains injuries from which he dies, an action for damages brought by his administrator against such institution is in effect a proceeding against the state, and a demurrer to the declaration asserting such claim is properly sustained.

Certified questions from Circuit Court, Roane County. Action by Zella Barber, administratrix of the estate of Alonzo Barber, deceased, against the Spencer State Hospital. A demurrer to the declaration was sustained, and the questions certified.

Ruling affirmed.

A

Wm. S. Ryan and Thos. P. Ryan, for plaintiff. Harper & Baker, for defendant.

Meredith, President:

Zella Barber, administratrix of the estate of Alonzo Barber, deceased, sues to recover damages for the wrongful death of her decedent. She names as defendant the "Spencer State Hospital (formerly Second Hospital for the Insane), a corporation."

She charges that while the decedent was employed by defendant in operating a motor tractor on the State Farm in Mason County, the defendant negligently permitted the tractor and certain of its parts to become and remain insecure and unsafe; that while the tractor was in such condition, the decedent, acting under instructions from defendant, and without knowledge of its defects, undertook to operate the machine; that while so doing in a prudent and careful manner, the tractor suddenly went into reverse, became unmanageable, and decedent was thrown violently against the machine which the tractor was pulling and was so severely injured that he died some time later. The declaration also alleges that the superintendent of the defendant institution refused to render medical aid to the decedent after he was taken to the hospital, and that defendant had not elected to pay into the Workmen's Compensation Fund; on account of all which, plaintiff claims damages.

Defendant demurred to the declaration. The circuit court sustained the demurrer, and upon its own motion certified the following questions to this court:

1. Does the declaration set up a cause of action?

2. Can this suit be maintained under the laws of this state against defendant?

3. Is this suit against this state?

4. Is the defendant honnd by what is known as the "Workmen's Compensation Act" in this state?

5. Shonld said demurrer have been sustained or overruled?

Defendant is a hospital for insane persons, supported entirely by state funds, and located at Spencer, Roane County. Its chief defense, as raised by the demurrer, is that being a state institution, this action is one against the state, and for that reason it can not be maintained. Manifestly, that is the controlling question presented here.

Plaintiff contends that defendant is a corporation, and that as such it can sue and be sued. However, such is not the law, and was not the law either at the time the accident here complained of occurred, or when the suit was brought. By sec. 5, ch. 58, Acts 1909, (sec. 5, ch. 15-M, Code, 1923), the title to all the property of defendant, and all control and management thereof was vested in the State Board of Control, which board was created by section 1 of the same act. The board so created succeeded to the powers and duties of the various boards and commissions formerly in charge of state institutions, and was made a corporation with power to contract and be contracted with, to sue and to be sued, and to use a common seal. Chapter 51, Acts 1915, changed the name of defendant from "The Second State Hospital for the Insane'' to the name it now bears, but left its management in the hands of the Board of Control. Chapter 31 of the Acts of the same year amended the Act of 1909, which created the Board, in several respects, one change being to omit the expression authorizing the Board to sue and be sued.

These statutes make it very clear that defendant is not a corporation, no more so than the State University or the penitentiary; the title to all of its property and the management of all its affairs is committed to the State Board of Control, which is a body of three men appointed by the Governor with the advice of the State Senate, and called a corporation. Obviously, any claim asserted against defendant must be addressed to the Board.

Assuming that the declaration filed in this case can be properly treated as a claim against the Board of Control, is it not barred as an action against the State?

Three cases decided by this court decide the matter. In Miller v. State Board of Agriculture...