Consol. Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Wright
Decision Date | 13 December 1927 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 18379 |
Citation | 1927 OK 474,261 P. 953,128 Okla. 193 |
Parties | CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 et al. v. WRIGHT. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 Schools and School Districts -- Consolidated Districts--Nonliability of District or Board for Injuries to Pupil Caused by Negligent Driving of School Bus.
Furnishing free motor transportation to public school children under section 10465, C. O. S. 1921, by a district board of a consolidated school district is a public governmental function, and neither said school district, nor said board, nor the individual members thereof, are liable in damage for injuries to a pupil caused by the negligence of its officers, agents, or employees, in the control or operation of its motor truck for such purpose, where they have acted in good faith and without malice.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 1.
Error from District Court, Tulsa County; Luther James, Judge.
Action by Rilda Wright, by her father and next friend, T. L Wright, against Consolidated School District No. 1 of Tulsa County, Okla., et al. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Randolph, Haver & Shirk, for plaintiffs in error.
Harry E. Stege and Moss, Searcy, Montgomery & Young, for defendant in error
The Attorney General, amicus curiae.
¶1 On November 4, 1925, Rilda Wright, plaintiff, aged 14, a resident of and a pupil in consolidated school district No. 1, in Tulsa county, Okla., was permanently and seriously injured in an accident to a school bus. The bus was being driven by one H. L. Mayfield, the regular driver, who was also a teacher in the school. Parties will be referred to as they were designated in the trial court.
¶2 The school was in the village of Turley. As the bus, loaded with school children, was being driven about 8 o'clock in the morning toward the village, the two right wheels went off the pavement, which was wet from mist and rain. This was at a point near a culvert and the road was slightly down grade. The driver succeeded in getting the front wheel back on the pavement, but when the rear wheel came back on the pavement the bus, on account of the heavy load, the grade, and wet pavement, skidded around, and the rear end struck the abutment of the culvert and overturned, and plaintiff was injured.
¶3 Brady Taylor, L. J. Garnett, and William Robinson comprised the board of said school district. Mayfield was not made a party. The negligence alleged is that Mayfield was an inexperienced and incompetent driver; that the defendants, the school district and the individual members thereof, were negligent in that they knew or should have known that the said driver was incompetent and inexperienced, and that he had had a number of accidents, and that he was an unsuitable and improper person to have charge of the transportation of said pupils, by reason whereof the plaintiff was injured.
¶4 There was a general demurrer filed by each and all of the defendants, and later motions to direct verdict, and the same were overruled with exceptions. There was a verdict of a jury and a judgment thereon for $ 50,000 against all the defendants, and for review thereof this appeal is lodged here. There are eleven assignments of error, but in the argument three questions are presented:
¶5 This case has been skillfully tried, and there are exceptional briefs filed on the part of each party. The clear-cut and candid announcement of law applicable to this case in the respective briefs is of the greatest aid to the court in determining the law questions involved. For example, with respect to a proper answer to questions Nos 1 and 2 (which points we now hold to be finally determinative of this case), the plaintiff, on page 11 of the brief, uses the following language:
¶6 Further:
¶7 Accepting at full face, therefore, this statement of the plaintiff, if the furnishing to the plaintiff of transportation to the common free school by the school board was an exercise of a purely governmental function, then the answer to these two pivotal questions must be in the negative. On the other hand, if the same was in the exercise of a corporate or proprietary function, or if the same was exercised and intended for private advantage, and for the benefit of the corporation, or its inhabitants, or for a limited number of such inhabitants, then such exercise would not be a governmental function, but would be essentially private, and liability would follow.
1. Is the furnishing of free transportation by the school boards of the state to those pupils within their several consolidated school districts, who reside two or more miles from school, an exercise of governmental function?
¶8 The Constitution of Oklahoma, article I, sec. 5, provides:
"Provisions shall be made for the establishment and maintenance of a system of public schools, which shall be open to all the children of the state and free from sectarian control. * * *"
¶9 Article 13, sec. 1, provides:
"The Legislature shall establish and maintain a system of free public schools wherein all the children of the state may be educated."
¶10 Article 11, sec. 2, provides, among other things:
¶11 Section 3 of said article provides:
"The interest and income of the permanent school fund, the net income from the leasing of public lands, * * * together with any revenues derived from taxes authorized to be levied for such purposes, and any other sums which may be added thereto by law, shall be used and applied each year for the benefit of the common schools of the state, and shall be, for this purpose, apportioned among and between all the several common school districts of the state in proportion to the school population of the several districts, and no part of the fund shall ever be diverted from this purpose, or used for any other purpose than the support and maintenance of common schools for the equal benefit of all the people of the state."
¶12 Article 13, sec. 4 provides:
"The Legislature shall provide for the compulsory attendance at some public or other school, unless other means of education are provided, of all the children in the state who are sound in mind and body, between the ages of eight and sixteen years, for at least three months in each year."
¶13 Our highest court, speaking through Justice Williams, in the case of Oklahoma Ry. Co. v St. Joseph's School, 33 Okla. 755, 127 P. 1087, announces the doctrine, which must be perfectly obvious from reading the foregoing excerpts from the Constitution, that:
"The free public school system, which the Legislature of this state was directed to establish by section 1 of article 13 of the Constitution, is a matter of state concern and not a municipal affair." (Citing Olson, County Clerk, v. Logan County Bank, 29 Okla. 391, 118 P. 572; Board of Education of the City of Ardmore v. State, 26 Okla. 366, 109 P. 563)
¶14 It will be seen that in chapter 86, C O. S. 1921, entitled "Schools," there is formulated under the above constitutional provisions a comprehensive system of public schools for the state of Oklahoma Section 10337, art. 7, of said chapter provides:
"Every school district organized in pursuance of this article shall be a body corporate, and shall...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Common School Dist. No. 61 in Twin Falls County v. Twin Falls Bank & Trust Co.
... ... AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS-FORGED ORDERS-LACHES-ESTOPPEL ... 1 ... School district is agency of state created solely for ... operation ... C. L. 1124, sec. 402; Consolidated School ... Dist. v. Wright, 128 Okla. 193, 261 P. 953, 56 A. L. R ... 152; 6 McQuillin, Mun. Corp., ... ...
-
Oea v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Legislature
... ... Const. art. I, § 5 and art. XIII, § 1, and has failed to fund the State Public Common School ... 2. Gladstone v. Bartlesville Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 30, 2003 OK 30, ¶ 5, 66 P.3d 442, 445 ... 26. Consol. Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Wright, 1927 OK 474, ¶ 37, 261 P ... ...
- Consolidated School Dist. No. 1 of Tulsa County v. Wright
-
Hazlett v. Bd. of Com'Rs of Muskogee Cnty.
... ... Court of OklahomaDecided: May 22, 1934 Syllabus 0 1. Counties--Nonliability of County for Torts of Officers and ... aforesaid." 21 Defendants cite Consolidated School Dist. No. 1, Tulsa County, v. Wright, 128 Okla. 193, 261 P. 953, ... ...