Bell v. Presbytery of Boise
| Decision Date | 28 December 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 9711,9711 |
| Parties | Jon BELL, by his next friend Jeanne Albrecht, and Jacob Albrecht and Jeanne Albrecht, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The PRESBYTERY OF BOISE, a non-profit corporation, and Second United Presbyterian Church of Boise, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Anderson, Kaufman & Anderson, Boise, for appellants.
Elam, Burke, Jeppesen & Evans, Boise, for respondents.
In appellants' complaint they allege that the Presbytery of Boise is a non-profit corporation organized in Idaho, affiliated with the United Presbyterian Church of the United States, and is the governing board presiding over, and responsible for, a group of Presbyterian churches within its jurisdiction in southwestern Idaho and eastern Oregon, one of which is respondent, Second United Presbyterian Church of Boise; that as a part of its organized and sponsored programs, the church undertakes certain fellowship activities, among which was included for the Junior High Fellowship Group a supervised outing on Tablerock, a well-known promontory just east of Boise, and that Jon Bell was one of the group of children in attendance at this outing; that as a part of this activity, the children, nine in number, were accompanied by five adults acting for, and on behalf of, the church but no paid employees of the church nor the minister were directly involved, and it was the purpose of these adults to supervise, safeguard and protect the children from harm; that Tablerock constitutes a place of danger, particularly to children, and on March 30, 1963, the day in question, the supervising adults permitted the children of junior high school age to run on ahead and proceed to the top of Tablerock, unaccompanied by adults; that Jon Bell fell from a precipitous rock wall facing of Tablerock and suffered severe and permanent physical injury for which appellants, Jacob and Jeanne Albrecht have incurred considerable expense for medical treatment and other kindred services, and will continue to do so in the future; that the injury suffered by Jon Bell and the expenses incurred by the Albrechts resulted from the negligence of the accompanying and supervising adults in permitting the children to proceed to the top of Tablerock alone, and that said adults at the time in question were then and there acting for, and on behalf of, the church, a member of the Presbytery.
Respondents answered generally denying all allegations of negligence and agency and asserted the affirmative defense of the charitable immunity of the church. After some preliminary motions appellants were permitted to file an amended complaint which in essence was the same as the original complaint but contained an additional paragraph asserting that during all times involved respondents were insured under a policy of comprehensive liability insurance which protects respondents from any liability which might be imposed as a result of this action to the extent of $100,000.00; that said policy contains a medical payment endorsement covering bodily injury to the extent of $250.00 per person; that respondents' company had paid that amount on the medical expenses incurred by appellants; and that the ownership of such comprehensive liability insurance policy and the coverage thereunder constitutes a waiver of any immunity respondents might have or claim as a charitable organization to the extent of the coverage, i. e., $100,000.00, and additionally that payment by respondents and their insurer under the medical payment endorsement provision of the policy constituted a waiver of any claim of charitable immunity.
Upon motion of respondents this paragraph was stricken from the amended complaint and in their answer thereto respondents again set forth the charitable character of respondents; asserted that beneficiaries of such charity could not maintain an action of this nature and raised the additional defenses of agency, contributory negligence and assumption of risk, these latter three defenses being immaterial on this appeal. Appellants replied to the answer, again alleging the insurance coverage. Thereafter respondents filed their motion for summary judgment based solely on the defense of charitable immunity, and this motion was granted by the trial court and judgment was entered in favor of respondents accordingly.
On this appeal there are only two questions involved: (1) are appellants precluded from bringing this action by reason of the doctrine of charitable immunity, and (2) if such immunity does apply has it been waived by reason of the purchase and existence of the general liability insurance and the payment to appellants of the medical...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howard v. Bishop Byrne Council Home, Inc., 139
...Inc., 7 Terry 350, 83 A.2d 753 (Del.1951); Suwannee County Hospital Corp. v. Golden, 56 So.2d 911 (Fla.1952); Bell v. Presbytery of Boise, 91 Idaho 374, 421 P.2d 745 (1966); Neely v. St. Francis Hospital & School of Nursing, 192 Kan. 716, 391 P.2d 155 (1964); Mullikin v. Jewish Hospital Ass......
-
Smith v. State
...of this principle will not result in justice, it is evident that the doctrine is not properly applicable. In Bell v. Presbytery of Boise, 91 Idaho 374, 421 P.2d 745 (1966), the doctrine of charitable immunity was overruled by this Court without waiting for the legislature to change the law.......
-
Jones v. State Bd. of Medicine
...hospital, was not a creation of the common law; at least, certainly not the common law in existence in 1890. See, Bell v. Presbytery of Boise, 91 Idaho 374, 421 P.2d 745 (1966). The idea that due process imposes a quid pro quo requirement seems to have resulted from dictum in New York Centr......
-
Thompson v. Hagan
...for Tort Liability, pp. 201-205 (1970).15 The Association of Trial Lawyers of America, Newsletter, and 56-57, March, 1973.16 91 Idaho 374, 421 P.2d 745 (1966).17 Bell v. Presbytery of Boise, supra, note 16, at 376, 421 P.2d at 747.18 Growen v. Davis, 85 Idaho 221, 377 P.2d 950 (1963).19 280......