Cullinan v. Jefferson County

Decision Date17 March 1967
Citation418 S.W.2d 407
PartiesR. Keith CULLINAN, Appellant, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY et al., Appellees.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

Robert P. Hastings, Louisville, for appellant.

E. P. Sawyer, County Atty., Charles Speed Gray, Asst. County Atty., Louisville, for Jefferson County and Jefferson County Playground and Recreation Board.

Lucian L. Johnson, Louisville, for Jefferson County School Board.

MONTGOMERY, Judge.

The question is whether sovereign immunity extends to Jefferson County, Jefferson County Board of Education, and Jefferson County Playgound and Recreation Board so as to bar an action by R. Keith Cullinan for damages arising from his stepping into a hole on the premises of the Middletown Elementary School. Summary judgment was granted on the basis that sovereign immunity barred recovery.

The appellant was engaged in playing tennis on the school premises. While attempting to stop a ball that had gone some twenty feet off the tennis court, he stepped into a hole and fractured his ankle. A supervisor of the Jefferson County Playground and Recreationg Board was in attendance while appellant was playing tennis at the school ground of the Jefferson County Board of Education.

A board of education in Kentucky is performing a function of the state in operating the public schools as state institutions. City of Louisville v. Board of Education, 154 Ky. 316, 157 S.W. 379. 'Public education has always been regarded as a matter of state concern * * *.' Commonwealth ex rel. Baxter v. Burnett, 237 Ky. 473, 35 S.W.2d 857.

School taxes are classified as state and not local taxes. Commonwealth by Board v. Louisville Nat. Bank, 220 Ky. 89, 294 S.W. 815. Members of county boards of education are state and not municipal officers. Middleton v. Middleton, 239 Ky. 759, 40 S.W.2d 311. Local school boards fulfill a governmental function of state government by providing public education within a particular geographical area. Board of Education v. Society of Alumni of L.M.H.S., Ky., 239 S.W.2d 931.

This court has held that a school board is a political subdivision and arm of the state government. City of Louisville v. Board of Education, 302 Ky. 647, 195 S.W.2d 291; Board of Education v. City of Corbin, 301 Ky. 686, 192 S.W.2d 951. The sovereign immunity of the state as to the Department of Highways was upheld after thorough consideration in Foley Construction Co. v. Ward, Ky., 375 S.W.2d 392. As an integral part of the state the Jefferson County Board of Education likewise is entitled to protection under the state's sovereign immunity. Thacker v. Pike County Board of Education, 301 Ky. 781, 193 S.W.2d 409.

Jefferson County is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth as well, and as such is an arm of the state government. It, too, is clothed with the same sovereign immunity. Monroe County v. Rouse, Ky., 274 S.W.2d 477; Ginter v. Montgomery County, Ky., 327 S.W.2d 98; 20 C.J.S. Counties, § 1, page 753. The Recreation Board is a part of such subdivision.

Appellant relies on Haney v. City of Lexington, Ky., 386 S.W.2d 738, 10 A.L.R.3d 1362, wherein it was held that sovereign immunity did not render the City of Lexington immune from its torts. The decision in Haney was expressly limited to a municipal corporation and the sovereign immunity of the state was again recognized.

In the Haney case it is pointed out that the Florida Supreme Court 'was the first to pierce the armor of municipal immunity,' citing Hargrove v. Town of Cocoa Beach, Fla., 96 So.2d 130, 60 A.L.R.2d 1193. In a later case, Buck v. McLean, Fla.App., 115 So.2d 764, the Hargrove case was distinguished, and it was held that 'county boards of public instruction are agencies of the State and as such are clothed with the same degree of immunity from suit as is the State.' In a still later case, Kaulakis v. Boyd, Fla., 138 So.2d 505, it was held that counties 'partake of the sovereign immunity from liability.' Thus, sovereign immunity has been held to extend to counties and county boards of education in Florida despite the holding that immunity did not extend to a municipality. Such is the situation here and no justifiable reason for holding otherwise has been advanced.

It was pointed out in Foley Construction Co. v. Ward, Ky., 375 S.W.2d 392, and in the dissent in Haney v. City of Lexington, Ky., 386 S.W.2d 738, at page 743, 10 A.L.R.3d 1362, that the power to grant authority to sue the Commonwealth or any of its subdivisions is within the legislative power vested in the General Assembly. Kentucky Constitution, Sections 27, 29, and 231. Section 231 provides: 'The General Assembly may, by law, direct in what manner and in what courts suits may be brought against the Commonwealth.' This same language has been embodied in the Constitution since the first one. Kentucky Constitution (1792), Article VIII, Section 4; Kentucky Constitution (1799), Article VI, Section 6; Kentucky Constitution (1850), Article VIII, Section 6.

From time to time the General Assembly has provided remedies for certain torts committed by agents of the Commonwealth and its subdivisions. The remedy has been in the form of a legislative enactment which recognized the protection of sovereign immunity as it applied to the particular subddivision, either a county or a board of education, but authorized the subdivision to carry insurance to cover certain types of hazards. In each instance suit is authorized against the subdivision only for the purpose of obtaining a judgment which when final shall measure the liability of the insurance carrier to the insured party for whose benefit the insurance policy was issued. It is expressly provided that such judgment shall not be enforceable against the political subdivision or the members composing its governing board.

By KRS 67.180, 67.185, and 67.186 the General Assembly has authorized relief against the negligence of county employees in the operation of moter vehicles and hospitals and protection against compensation claims. Similasr relief has been authorized by KRS 160.310 against the negligence of drivers or operators of school buses, other motor vehicles, and motor equipment owned or operated by a board of education. In each of those statutes the sovereign immunity of the county or board of education is expressly recognized and preserved.

The General Assembly at its regular 1966 session enacted House Bill 44i, now Chapter 180, Acts 1966, pages 792--795. This Act was passed apparently as a result of the decision in Foley Construction Co. v. Ward, Ky., 375 S.W.2d 392. The Act authorizes the bringing of actions for breach of contract against the Commonwealth. It expressly provides: 'All defenses in law or equity, except the defense of governmental immunity, shall be preserved to the Commonwealth.'

This awareness by the General Assembly of its constitutional authority, with the corresponding responsibility, is pointed out in order to demonstrate that this court should not invade the constitutional authority of the General Assembly by holding that the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not bar a tort action against Jefferson County or the Jefferson County Board of Education. The General Assembly has shown that it will exercise the authority entrusted to it in this respect when it feels that it is needed.

It is a fundamental concept of our form of government that the members of the legislative branch of government are elected from time to time to reflect the feeling of the people and to enact laws to meet their needs. When the people of this Commonwealth want sovereign immunity waived as to counties or county boards of education, their elected legislative representatives will be charged with this responsibility.

The Supreme Court of North Dakota in Fetzer v. Minot Park District, N.D., 138 N.W.2d 601, decided recently, reached the same conclusion in a similar case. The North Dakota Constitution, Section 22, provides that 'suits may be brought against the state in such manner, in such courts, and in such cases, as the legislative assembly may, by law, direct.' The language is strikingly similar to Kentucky Constitution Section 231. In denying the action the court recognized the constitutional authority reposing in the Legislature and refused to assume any legislative function.

The Missouri Supreme Court recently upheld the doctrine of sovereign immunity in an action by a student against a public school district for injuries received while wrestling as a part of a physical education class. Smith v. Consolidated School District No. 2, Mo., 408 S.W.2d 50. It was pointed out that the rejection of the theory of governmental immunity in California had created such chaos that immediate remedial legislative action was required. Problems of a Sovereign Without Immunity, 36 So.Cal.L.Rev. 168. Reference was also made to Tesone v. School District No. RE--2, in the County of Boulder, etc., 152 Colo. 596, 384 P.2d 82, wherein it was said that the removal of sovereign immunity and the creation of liability against a governmental agency for the negligent acts of its servants 'must be a creation of the legislative branch of the government.' See also Supler v. North Franklin Township, Washington County School...

To continue reading

Request your trial
55 cases
  • Rose v. Council for Better Educ., Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • June 8, 1989
    ...received from the state by specific local effort. Although such local taxes may now be considered as state taxes, Cullinan v. Jefferson County, Ky. 418 S.W.2d 407 (1967), they should be treated as trust funds and scrupulously attributed to the local district involved. The General Assembly m......
  • Smith v. Franklin County
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky
    • October 17, 2002
    ... ... v. Harris, 59 S.W.3d 896, 899 (Ky.2001); Cullinan v. Jefferson County, 418 S.W.2d 407, ... Page 680 ... 408 (Ky.1967). Defendant Maxwell, the nurse and a member of the jail staff, and the ... ...
  • B.L. v. Schuhmann
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky
    • May 2, 2019
    ...Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. Louisville/Jefferson Cty. Metro Gov't , 270 S.W.3d 904, 907 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Cullinan v. Jefferson Cty. , 418 S.W.2d 407, 408 (Ky. 1967), overruled on other grounds by Yanero , 65 S.W.3d at 527 )). "And absent a legislative waiver, county governments ca......
  • Yanero v. Davis, 1999-SC-0871-DG.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • November 21, 2001
    ...King v. Sermonis, Ky., 481 S.W.2d 652, 655 (1972); Carter v. Pfannenschmidt, Ky., 467 S.W.2d 777, 778 (1971); Cullinan v. Jefferson County, Ky., 418 S.W.2d 407, 410 (1967). It has been asserted that the concept of governmental immunity was developed in Kentucky as a common law concept appli......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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