City of Chattanooga v. Harris

• Decision Date: 09 June 1969
• Citation: 1 Pack 51,223 Tenn. 51,442 S.W.2d 602
• Parties: , 223 Tenn. 51 The CITY OF CHATTANOOGA, Tennessee v. Fannie HARRIS et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 602

442 S.W.2d 602

1 Pack 51, 223 Tenn. 51

The CITY OF CHATTANOOGA, Tennessee v. Fannie HARRIS et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

June 9, 1969.

Eugene N. Collins, Ellis K. Meacham and Randall L. Nelson, Chattanooga, for appellant.

Richard Dietzen, Chattanooga, for Fannie Harris.

John C. Curtis, Chattanooga, for Theodore Wheeler.

George F. McCanless, Atty. Gen., and C. Hayes Cooney, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, for Atty. Gen., State of Tennessee.

Alf R. 'Tony' O'Rear, Chattanooga, and Arvin H. Reingold, Chattanooga, DiRisio & Reingold, Chattanooga, of counsel, amici curiae.

OPINION

BURNETT, Chief Justice.

This is a suit for a declaratory judgment filed by the City of Chattanooga seeking a ruling as to the constitutionality of Chapter 374, Public Acts of 1967; codified as § 6--640, T.C.A. The factual issues of the case are not in contention here and may be summarily stated.

Fannie Harris, a defendant in this case, brought an action against Theodore Wheeler, a Chattanooga policeman, for damages resulting from the death of her husband, who was killed in an accident involving Wheeler while he was carrying out his duties as a policeman. Wheeler, pursuant to the statute in question has petitioned the City of Chattanooga to provide defense counsel in the suit and to pay any judgment rendered against him. The City of Chattanooga then brought the present action in the Hamilton County Chancery Court, and has appealed to this Court from the Chancellor's ruling that the statute is constitutional.

The statute reads, as follows:

'Whenever any employee member of a fire or police department of a municipal corporation or other political subdivision of the state of Tennessee shall be sued for damages arising out of the performance of his official duties and while engaged in the course of his employment by such governmental agency, such governmental agency shall be authorized and required to provide defense counsel for such employee in such suit and to indemnify him from any judgment rendered against him in such suit; provided, however, that such indemnity shall not extend to any judgment for punitive damages or for damages arising out of any willful wrongdoing by said employee and; provided, further, that such municipal corporation or other political subdivision shall have notice of such suit.

'Provide, however, that liability on behalf of any municipal corporation or political subdivision affected by §§ 6--640, 6--641 shall be limited to fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for each person injured or property damaged from any one (1) accident and one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for all injuries and all property damage resulting from any one (1) accident. Provided, further, that in the event said municipal corporation or political subdivision is unable to purchase insurance to cover its obligation hereunder, except through the assigned risk pool, then the limit of liability hereunder shall be limited to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for injury to any one (1) person resulting from one (1) accident and twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for all injuries resulting from one (1) accident and five thousand dollars ($5,000) for property damage resulting from any one (1) accident if said insurance is actually purchased. If insurance is not purchased through assigned risk pool then lower limits provided for herein do not apply.'

The appellant's first contention is that the statute is violative of Article XI, Section 8, and Article I, Section 8, of our Constitution in that it is class legislation and discriminates unreasonably in favor of the limited class of city employees comprised of policemen and firemen and this imposes corresponding burdens upon other employees denied its benefits. In this contention appellant relies heavily upon the unreported opinion written by former Chief Justice Neil in the case of Shelton v. Olgiati, filed November 16, 1954. In that case the question concerned the right of policemen and firemen to a De novo hearing upon the facts under the statutory writ of certiorari concerning any disciplinary action taken by the commissioner. The Court there held that the statute involved gave the policemen and firemen a preferred status and discriminated against other employees who were likewise under Civil Service, but were denied the right to such a hearing. There was no showing in that case that any reasonable grounds existed for the difference in treatment afforded the two groups of employees. It is the element of reasonableness that forms the distinction between the instant case and Shelton.

It is elemental in our law that the keystone in determining the constitutionality of a statute under this Section of The Constitution is reasonableness of classification. The Court noted in Sutton v. State, 96 Tenn. 696, 36 S.W. 697, 33 L.R.A. 589, and has reiterated many times since, that class legislation is of two kinds: namely, that in which the classification is natural and reasonable and that in which the classification is arbitrary and capricious. Class legislation whose classification is natural and reasonable is constitutional and valid, but class legislation whose classification is arbitrary and capricious is unconstitutional and invalid.

In the instant case it takes but little reflection to recognize that policemen and firemen are subject to many more incidents raising the possibility of liability than are any other city employees, either individually or as a group. Both policemen and firemen are often involved in emergency situations such that haste and directness of approach is of such importance that a consideration of possible liability resulting from taking the necessary action must not be allowed to interfere with the carrying out of their mission. Often, too, police and fire employees are not only empowered but are expected, to take actions which may violate the customary safety standards set for the public at large. Thus, the statute which implicitly recognizes the greater potential liability resulting from the peculiar duties of these two groups of employees is an example of a classification based on a reasonable and natural difference between groups of employees, and as such is not contrary to Article XI, Section 8, or Article I, Section 8, of our Constitution.

Appellant further contends that the statute discriminates against municipalities which are able to buy insurance directly by requiring such municipalities to carry policies with limits of $50,000 and $100,000, and in favor of municipalities compelled to buy insurance through the assigned risk pool, but requiring such municipalities to carry policies with limits of only $10,000 and $20,000, without any reasonable basis for this discrimination.

It is to be noted that the statute does not require any municipality to buy insurance of any kind. However, as the next statute in the sequence, § 6--641, T.C.A., specifically authorizes municipalities to buy insurance coverage for all its employees, the Legislature must have realized that many municipalities would resort to this mode of providing the benefit required under the statute and to have considered the practical problems implicit in such action.

One such problem concerns the commercial practice, in the insurance field, of classifying applicants into two groups; those who may buy insurance directly at the regular rates and by ordinary procedures, and those who, because of such factors as a high incidence of liability, are denied such insurance and are relegated to an assigned risk pool where...