Dick v. Board of Education

• Decision Date: 14 March 1922
• Docket Number: No. 22369.,22369.
• Citation: 238 S.W. 1073
• Parties: DICK v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF ST. LOUIS.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

238 S.W. 1073

DICK v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF ST. LOUIS.

No. 22369.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

March 14, 1922.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Victor H. Falkenhainer, Judge.

Action by Harry Lee Dick, a minor, by his next friend, Harry L. Dick, against the Board of Education of the City of St. Louis. From judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Hudson & Hudson, of St. Louis, for appellant.

Robert Burkham, of St. Louis, for respondent.

BROWN, C.

This is a suit for personal injuries instituted January 9, 1919. The damage is laid in the petition at $35,000.

The petition states, in substance, that the plaintiff, on November 22, 1918, was a pupil in the Cote Brilliante public school of the city of St. Louis, and while in that capacity, he was rightfully upon the playground of the school premises, the defendant, by its servant and agent in charge of and operating a motortruck owned and operated by it in the performance of its corporate duties, carelessly and negligently ran said motortruck Over the plaintiff, inflicting upon him serious and permanent injuries. To this petition, to which no formal objection is made, the defendant interposed a general demurrer; so that the question is presented whether or not the defendant corporation is liable In damages for personal injuries inflicted by its servants and agents while engaged in the performance of duties devolved by law on such corporate bodies.

There can be no doubt that, when the state establishes and provides for the maintenance, operation, and management of public schools for the education of all children alike, at the expense of the public, it is acting in pursuance of a governmental policy founded solely in the public good. When these duties are, as in this case (section 11456, R. S. Mo. 1919), confided by law to a quasi corporation created for that purpose, such corporation is charged with the use of public funds devoted by law to that object. To that extent it is simply an instrument of the state government, and is entitled to no pecuniary profit from its services, which are devoted solely to the public.

We discussed this principle in the light of numerous authorities cited in our opinion, in Zummo v. Kansas City, 285 Mo. 222, 225 S. W. 934, and held, in substance, that, while a municipal corporation in this state is generally liable for damages resulting from its negligence in the construction and maintenance of the public highways within its limits...