Holland v. Yankton School Dist. 63-3

• Decision Date: 08 January 1985
• Docket Number: No. 14632,14632
• Citation: 375 N.W.2d 199,28 Ed.LawRep. 272
• Parties: 28 Ed. Law Rep. 272 Hazel HOLLAND, Guardian Ad Litem for Larry Holland, v. YANKTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 63-3; Jayne Gullickson, Individually and in her capacity as an employee of Defendant Yankton School District 63-3; Robert Johnson, Individually and in his capacity as an employee of Defendant Yankton School District 63-3; and Arlene Stoebner, Individually and in her capacity as an employee of Defendant Yankton School District 63-3. . Considered on Briefs
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

Page 199

375 N.W.2d 199

28 Ed. Law Rep. 272

Hazel HOLLAND, Guardian Ad Litem for Larry Holland, v. YANKTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 63-3; Jayne Gullickson Individually and in her capacity as an employee of Defendant Yankton School District 63-3; Robert Johnson, Individually and in his capacity as an employee of Defendant Yankton School District 63-3; and Arlene Stoebner, Individually and in her capacity as an employee of Defendant Yankton School District 63-3.

No. 14632.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

Considered on Briefs Jan. 8, 1985.

Decided Oct. 16, 1985.

Robert L. Chavis of Chavis Law Office, Yankton, for plaintiff and appellant.

Celia Miner and Gerald L. Reade of Brady, Kabeiseman, Reade & Johnson, Yankton, for defendants and appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment that dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds the personal injury action that she had brought on behalf of her minor child. We affirm.

Plaintiff's complaint alleged that her son, who was then nine years old, suffered a third-degree burn on his leg when some hot soup spilled on him in the lunch room at Lincoln School in Yankton on March 29, 1983, as a result of the alleged negligence of the Yankton School District's employees. At the time of the accident, Yankton School District had in effect a liability insurance policy purchased pursuant to SDCL 13-10-9.

Plaintiff concedes that based upon this court's past holdings, defendant school district would be immune from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. See, e.g., Guillaume v. Staum, 328 N.W.2d 259 (S.D.1982); Merrill v. Birhanzel, 310 N.W.2d 522 (S.D.1981). Plaintiff contends, however, that by purchasing liability insurance the state has waived the immunity of the school district and its employees. We do not agree.

SDCL 21-32-15 provides:

The state of South Dakota, through the commissioner of administration, may obtain and pay for public liability insurance to the extent and for the purposes considered expedient by the commissioner for the purpose of insuring the liability of the state, its officers, agents or employees.

SDCL 21-32-16 provides:

To the extent such liability insurance is purchased pursuant to Sec. 21-32-15 and to the extent coverage is afforded thereunder, the state shall be deemed to have waived the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity and consented to suit in the same manner that any other party may be sued.

Although school districts are state agencies, Guillaume and Merrill, supra, the state by purchasing liability coverage for its officers, agents and employees did not under SDCL 21-32-16 waive sovereign immunity on behalf of school districts. In Norgeot v. State, 334 N.W.2d 501 (S.D.1983), we held that pursuant to SDCL 21-32-15, as it then read, the state's purchase of liability insurance for the "Employees of the State of...