Clark v. State

• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM; All the Justices concur, except JORDAN, J., who concurs in the judgment only and NICHOLS, C. J. and HILL; HILL
• Citation: Clark v. State, 240 S.E.2d 5, 240 Ga. 188 (Ga. 1977)
• Decision Date: 24 October 1977
• Docket Number: No. 32560,32560
• Parties: Charles R. CLARK et al. v. The STATE of Georgia et al.

Page 5

240 S.E.2d 5

240 Ga. 188

Charles R. CLARK et al. v. The STATE of Georgia et al.

No. 32560.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Oct. 24, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 9, 1977.

Glenville Haldi, Jones, Corbin & Sarama, Gregory T. Jones, Harold K. Corbin, Atlanta, for appellants.

Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Robert E. Hall, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This court granted the application for writ of certiorari to review the decision and judgment of the Court of Appeals in Clark, et al. v. State of Georgia, et al., 142 Ga.App. 272, 235 S.E.2d 614 (1977). The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a tort suit against the State of Georgia, the Department of Natural Resources, its Director and Board on the grounds of state sovereign immunity.

In 1974 a constitutional amendment was ratified authorizing the establishment of a State Court of Claims. Code Ann. § 2-3401. This court has held that by virtue of the adoption of this amendment the doctrine of state sovereign immunity now has constitutional status and cannot be abrogated or modified by this court. Azizi v. Board of Regents of University of Georgia, 233 Ga. 487, 488, 212 S.E.2d 627 (1975).

The petitioner contends that the amendment was illegally ratified because it dealt with more than one subject matter. We disagree. See Sears v. State of Georgia, 232 Ga. 547(5), 208 S.E.2d 93 (1974); Hammond v. Clark, 136 Ga. 313, 324, 71 S.E. 479 (1911).

The petitioner also contends that the amendment was illegally ratified because the ballot language did not inform the electorate that they were adopting the doctrine of state sovereign immunity. We disagree. See Sears, supra, 554-556, 208 S.E.2d 93; McLennon v. Aldredge, 223 Ga. 879, 159 S.E.2d 682 (1968).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except JORDAN, J., who concurs in the judgment only and NICHOLS, C. J. and HILL, J., who dissent.

HILL, Justice, dissenting.

For what purpose are the people asked to adopt amendments to the Constitution which, after approval, are neglected and hence remain as if never passed? Although the people expressed their approval of the creation of a Court of Claims in 1974, no such court has yet been created.

However, the vice is that the amendment did more than authorize creation of a court to allow recovery by people injured by the state, its agencies and political subdivisions. The amendment also "expressly reserved" (i. e., preserved and froze) the sovereign immunity of the state. Before the amendment, sovereign immunity was a judicial concept, stiff but not immobile. The amendment purports to make sovereign immunity inflexible except as modified by law. Azizi, supra. The people were asked to vote on creation of a Court of Claims whereby persons injured or damaged by the state shall have a means of obtaining relief. Ga.L.1973, pp. 1489, 1490. Who could vote against such an amendment? Relatively few people did. (This amendment received far more votes "for" passage and far fewer votes "against" passage than any of the 16 amendments voted on in 1974; Ga.L.1975, pp. 2107-2110.)

Unfortunately the ballot language never informed the voters about the other subject contained therein, the paralyzation of the doctrine of sovereign immunity which the amendment was otherwise designed to ameliorate.

The critical language of the amendment is as follows (§ 2-3401): "Nothing...