Johnson v. Callisto, 41949
| Decision Date | 24 April 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 41949,41949 |
| Citation | 287 Minn. 61,176 N.W.2d 754 |
| Parties | Neil W. JOHNSON and Catherine M. Johnson, individually and as guardians ad litem for Stephen J. Johnson and Gregory R. Johnson, Appellants, v. Robert C. CALLISTO, et al., Defendants, N. T. Waldor, Commissioner of Highways of Minnesota, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. An action brought by an individual against the commissioner of highways 2. This court follows the vast majority of courts in this country which have considered the question and have held that state highway departments, commissions, authorities, or similar bodies are mere agencies of the state entitled to sovereign immunity from suit and therefore an action for negligence will not lie against such an agency except where there has been a waiver of immunity.
predicated upon an alleged breach of duty in failing to provide 'no passing' line markings on highway pursuant to Minn.St. 169.06, subd. 2, and further upon an allegation that the state has waived immunity for liability growing out of such alleged breach by reason of § 161.03, subd. 2, was properly dismissed on the ground that the complaint failed to state a valid claim. The acts provided for by § 169.06 are discretionary with the commissioner, and there can be no recovery on the bond under the provisions of § 161.03 in the absence of a showing of corrupt or malicious conduct or that the commissioner committed acts outside the scope of his authority.
Haugland, Carleen, O'Dougherty & Bohanon, Minneapolis, for appellants.
Douglas M. Head, Atty. Gen., Donn D. Christensen, Deputy Atty. Gen., John R. Murphy, Sp. Asst., Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for respondent.
Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and NELSON, MURPHY, OTIS, and THEODORE B. KNUDSON, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the district court dismissing an action brought against the commissioner of highways of the State of Minnesota on the ground that the action is in fact one against the state and that the state has not waived its immunity to suit for the claim alleged.
The complaint charges that an accident occurred while plaintiff Neil W. Johnson in operating his automobile collided head-on with an automobile driven by defendant Robert C. Callisto, who was passing a third automobile while approaching the crest of a hill. Negligence on the part of the commissioner is predicated upon his alleged failure to provide 'no passing' line markings on the hill. It is alleged that this breach of duty arises from Minn.St. 169.06, subd. 2, which provides in part:
'The commissioner shall place and maintain such traffic-control devices, conforming to the manual and specifications, upon all state trunk highways as he shall deem necessary to indicate and to carry out the provisions of this chapter or to regulate, warn, or guide traffic.'
Plaintiffs further reason that under the provisions of § 161.03, subd. 2, the state has waived immunity for liability growing out of such a situation. That provision recites:
1
On motion of the attorney general, the trial court promptly dismissed the action and expressed his views in a helpful memorandum which states:
'* * * Apart from the cases cited by counsel for N. T. Waldor, it is sufficient to say that the Court has also conducted some independent research and has read the material in Mason's Dunnell Minnesota Digest, Section 8831, and the various cases and statutes cited therein, and apart, again, from all of the material previously cited, has read the recent cases dealing with the subject matter, as well as some of the old landmarks in this area, such as the article entitled, 'Governmental Responsibility for Torts in Minnesota,' by Orville C. Peterson, found in Volume 26, Minnesota Law Review, page 293, and so forth. To explain the Court's feelings on the matter, it is only necessary to cite such following examples as found in the article by Mr. Peterson:
"The doctrine that the state as the sovereign cannot be sued for its torts is so firmly imbedded in the law that the cases have generally taken it for granted without discussion.'
'Reading further, page 321:
"It has been recognized that such state officers as the commissioner of highways are not personally liable for the consequences of their official acts done within the scope of their authority, at least unless they were not only unnecessary but were done corruptly or maliciously.'
'* * * Page 322 of the same article contains the following:
"For state officials who are required to furnish a bond to insure the faithful performance of their duties, such as the highway commissioner and his immediate subordinates, the right to sue the officer may be a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nieting v. Blondell
...action without its consent was so well established that it was followed without citation to controlling authorities. Johnson v. Callisto, 287 Minn. 61, 176 N.W.2d 754 (1970). While this history clearly indicates that the doctrine of sovereign immunity was originally court-made, it has been ......
-
Miller v. Chou, 46755
...instant cause of action arose before the effective date of these provisions, their interpretation is not before us.7 Johnson v. Callisto, 287 Minn. 61, 176 N.W.2d 754 (1970) (suggesting that abolition of state immunity was a question for the legislature), was this court's last pronouncement......
-
Susla v. State
...is not personally liable to an individual for damages unless he is guilty of a willful or malicious wrong. Johnson v. Callisto, 287 Minn. 61, 176 N.W.2d 754 (1970); Thiede v. Town of Scandia Valley, 217 Minn. 218, 14 N.W.2d 400 (1944); Wilbrecht v. Babcock, 179 Minn. 263, 228 N.W. 916 (1930......
-
State by Beaulieu v. City of Mounds View
...those two decades immunity for public officials from common law tort claims was given only one vague reference. See Johnson v. Callisto, 287 Minn. 61, 176 N.W.2d 754 (1970). The dormancy of the doctrine during the decades when the Human Rights Act was evolving bolsters our conviction that t......