Guillaume by Guillaume v. Staum
| Decision Date | 19 November 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 13709,13709 |
| Citation | 328 N.W.2d 259 |
| Parties | 8 Ed. Law Rep. 487 Linda Lee GUILLAUME, by Ileen GUILLAUME, Guardian of Linda Lee Guillaume, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Darmon STAUM, George Donnelly, Charles Donnelly, Steve Taylor, Paula Boilard, and Elk Point Public School District, Defendants and Appellees. . Considered on Briefs |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
R. Scott Rhinehart, N. Sioux City, and James R. Minick, Elk Point, for plaintiff and appellant.
James Doyle, Delvin N.J. Welter, Yankton, John Simko, Sioux Falls, John Murphy, Elk Point, and Lyle Wirt, Sioux Falls, for defendants and appellees.
Linda Lee Guillaume (appellant) brought this action in tort against the Elk Point School District and Paula Boilard and Steve Taylor (appellees), as its employees, for personal injuries received while under Ms. Boilard's and Mr. Taylor's supervision. Appellant was a member of the Elk Point School band and was injured while engaged in a required, supervised act: picking corn to raise money for the school band. Appellees' motion for summary judgment was granted on the basis of our recent decision in Merrill v. Birhanzel, 310 N.W.2d 522, 523 (S.D.1981), wherein we said, (Emphasis added, footnotes deleted).
Appellant raises a number of issues on appeal. However, this court granted her petition for intermediate appeal based on her statement therein that the only issue was the effect of SDCL 13-5-1. Accordingly, our review is confined to that public interest question. We affirm.
Appellant contends we erred in Birhanzel by overlooking SDCL 13-5-1, which states:
Any territory heretofore or hereafter organized for the express purpose of operating not less than a twelve-year school program and governed by a duly elected school board is defined to be a school district. It may sue and be sued, contract and be contracted with, purchase, hold, and use personal and real property for school purposes, and sell and dispose of the same. (Emphasis added).
SDCL 13-5-1 has been codified in essentially its present form since 1887. CL 1887 Sec. 1811. The import of SDCL 13-5-1 is to confer the powers necessary and incident to contracting. This statute, which we have never interpreted as constituting permission to sue a school district in tort, was in effect when we decided Plumbing Supply Co. v. Bd. of Ed., Etc., 32 S.D. 270, 142 N.W. 1131 (1913), a case relied upon in Birhanzel.
Plumbing Supply did not recognize the "may sue or be sued" statute as a consent to tort liability. It held that absent an express consent from the Legislature, sovereign immunity applies.
[S]chool districts are classified as quasi municipal corporations ... and are regarded as public or state agencies, charged by law with the performance of public or governmental functions; that is, they are the agents of the state for the purpose of carrying into effect the functions of government, and as such are not liable to be sued civilly for damages caused by neglect to perform such duties, where such neglect is based upon acts of omission only, unless such cause of action is expressly given by statute. (Emphasis added).
Id. at 1132. That is consistent with the general rule thus stated:
The courts have generally recognized a distinction between immunity from suit and immunity from tort liability, as regards the state and its governmental agencies. Accordingly, the view has generally been taken that a statute merely granting power to a school district or other public educational body to sue or be sued does not affect its tort immunity. (Emphasis added, footnotes omitted).
57 Am.Jur.2d, Municipal, School and State Tort Liability, Sec. 73.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dank v. Benson
...303 Ark. 120, 792 S.W.2d 604, 606 (1990); Ross v. Consumers Power Co., 420 Mich. 567, 363 N.W.2d 641, 651-52 (1984); Guillaume v. Staum, 328 N.W.2d 259, 261 (S.D.1982); Miller v. Chou, 257 N.W.2d 277, 280 (Minn.1977); State v. F.W. Fitch Co., 236 Iowa 208, 17 N.W.2d 380, 384 (1945). 28. Pow......
-
Aune v. B-Y Water Dist.
...immunity, create a cause of action in tort against the state college board. SDCL 13-49-11. Before Kringen, we held in Guillaume v. Staum, 328 N.W.2d 259 (S.D.1982): In absence of a statute waiving sovereign immunity from tort liability, a statute authorizing a school district to sue and be ......
- Kleinsasser v. Weber
-
Bego v. Gordon
...and enjoyed sovereign immunity protection in their decisions and actions in the schoolhouse. Holland, 375 N.W.2d 199; Guillaume v. Staum, 328 N.W.2d 259 (S.D.1982). See also Merrill v. Birhanzel, 310 N.W.2d 522 (S.D.1981). Were this not jurisprudentially true, both would still be immune bas......
-
Just say no excuse: the rise and fall of the intoxication defense.
...result must be reasonably expected to follow from the offender's voluntary act, not a risk which is consciously disregarded. Primeaux 328 N.W.2d at 259. (74.) Model Penal Code [Sections] 2.08(2) (1962). (75.) Model Penal Code [Sections] 2.08, at 8-9 (Tentative Draft No. 9, 1959). The draft ......