Bly v. Young, 87-24

Decision Date13 July 1987
Docket NumberNo. 87-24,87-24
Citation732 S.W.2d 157,293 Ark. 36
PartiesPatsy BLY, Appellant, v. Morris YOUNG, M.D., Appellee.
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Spears, Sloan & Coleman by Gerald A. Coleman, West Memphis, for appellant.

Barrett, Wheatley, Smith & Deacon by Jack Deacon, Jonesboro, for appellee.

NEWBERN, Justice.

The question presented in this appeal is whether an employee of the state of Arkansas may be held liable for an act done in the performance of his duties as a state employee to the extent the employee carries liability insurance. We hold that he may, and thus we reverse the circuit court's holding in favor of the state employee.

The appellee, Dr. Young, is a physician in private practice. He also worked part-time for the Arkansas Department of Health at the Maternal & Child Health Family Planning Clinic in Cross County. In the course of his employment with the state he was consulted by the appellant, Patsy Bly, who sought birth control assistance. The appellee inserted an intra-uterine device (IUD) in the appellant's uterus. She later was hospitalized, and the device was removed. Thereafter she suffered a miscarriage. She sued the appellee for malpractice.

In his answer the appellee stated that he had noted that the appellant's uterus was enlarged at the time he inserted the IUD and that he had questioned the appellant about whether she might be pregnant. His answer further alleged that the appellant had taken full responsibility for any result of the insertion of the IUD, and she insisted that she was not pregnant but she had had a recent, normal menstrual cycle. The appellant moved for summary judgment on the basis that he was immune from liability as a state employee, citing Ark.Stat.Ann. § 13-1420 (Supp. 1985). The trial court granted the summary judgment.

In Carter v. Bush, 283 Ark. 16, 677 S.W.2d 837 (1984), two Arkansas highway patrolmen were sued for wrongful death. The case arose from their having stopped two trucks on the highway in a manner so as to block the highway and, it was alleged, cause a motorist to be killed when his vehicle ran into one of the trucks from the rear. The trial court dismissed the action on the basis of § 13-1420. We reversed and said:

We are holding that an employee of the State of Arkansas who had liability insurance to cover negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle can be sued directly and the insurance company held liable for damages caused by the employee's negligent acts, even though the employee at the time is in the performance of duties as a state employee. [283 Ark. at 19; 677 S.W.2d at 839]

In granting summary judgment in the case before us now, the court cited Beaulieu v. Gray, 288 Ark. 395, 705 S.W.2d 880 (1986) as having overruled the Carter case. The action in the Beaulieu case was against employees of the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department for having wilfully and negligently designed and created an abnormally dangerous intersection which was allegedly the cause of a wreck and injuries to the plaintiff's ward. The action was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Deitsch v. Tillery
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 26 Mayo 1992
    ...to procure insurance for such acts, thereby creating an exception to the grant of immunity. The appellants also cite Bly v. Young, 293 Ark. 36, 732 S.W.2d 157 (1987) for the proposition that a state employee can be liable for tortious acts committed in the course of his or her duty, to the ......
  • Carter v. Bush
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 18 Julio 1988
    ...a claimant to sue the carrier directly, nor to alter our holding in Carter. This was made clear by our decision in Bly v. Young, 293 Ark. 36, 732 S.W.2d 157 (1987). Carter and Beaulieu are distinguishable, as Bly points out, in that in Beaulieu, unlike Carter, there was no allegation that t......
  • Smith v. Estate of Smith
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 13 Julio 1987
  • Cundiff v. Crider, 90-108
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 16 Julio 1990
    ...from suit...." We have recognized the distinction between immunity from liability and immunity from suit in three cases, Bly v. Young, 293 Ark. 36, 732 S.W.2d 157 (1987); Beaulieu v. Gray, 288 Ark. 395, 705 S.W.2d 880 (1986); and Carter v. Bush, 283 Ark. 16, 677 S.W.2d 837 (1984) (substitut......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT