Johnson v. City of Jackson
| Decision Date | 07 June 1952 |
| Citation | 33 A.L.R.2d 756,30 Beeler 20,250 S.W.2d 1,194 Tenn. 20 |
| Parties | , 194 Tenn. 20, 33 A.L.R.2d 756 JOHNSON v. CITY OF JACKSON. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Hughie Ragan, Jackson, for plaintiff in error.
William E. Leech, Jackson, for defendant in error.
A policeman of the City of Jackson, Tennessee, while operating a city-owned motorcycle over the streets of Jackson in performance of his duty of checking the parking meters of the city, ran over the plaintiff-in-error, James F. Johnson. Serious injuries resulted. Johnson brought this suit against the city to recover damages.
The city demurred to the declaration on the ground that it affirmatively disclosed this to be a suit to recover damages for alleged mere negligence of the city in the exercise of a governmental function. The Court sustained this demurrer, and dismissed the bill. Johnson has appealed.
The declaration alleges, in so far as material to the determination of the issue made, that the city maintained parking meters for its benefit 'in its individual corporate capacity', and that this policeman was assigned to the duty of checking these parking meters 'to see if persons had placed the funds due the city in same', and that, for the performance of this duty the city furnished this policeman a motorcycle which the city knew was so constructed that the handle bars and windshield 'interfered with the vision of' the policemen in driving it along the streets, and that the city knew that motorcycles more suitable for this use were available to it on the open market. The declaration further alleged that the eyesight of this policeman was known by the city to have been defective and, in spite of this knowledge, had failed to require this policeman 'to wear eyeglasses so that the lives of persons would not be in jeopardy'.
The theory of plaintiff-in-error is that the declaration affirmatively shows (1) the city to have been in the exercise of a corporate function, rather than of a governmental function, in maintaining and checking these parking meters, and, (2) if mistaken as to this, that the city was maintaining a nuisance in (a) using for the checking of the parking meters a motorcycle known to be equipped with a windshield that was insufficient to permit its driver 'to see vehicles and persons in the pathway', and (b) keeping in its employ for the driving of this motorcycle a policeman whose eyesight was known to be defective, and not 'requiring him to be fitted with proper eyeglasses'.
When a municipality is acting only in its proprietary capacity its liability for torts is the same as that of an individual. When it is engaged in the exercise of a governmental function its liability is limited to cases wherein the damage results from the maintenance of a nuisance. The first problem, therefore, for solution in the present case is whether Jackson was functioning in its corporate capacity on the one hand, or, on the other hand, was engaging in the exercise of a governmental function in maintaining these parking meters.
With the advent of motor vehicles the regulating and policing of traffic during business hours on the streets of a municipality became more difficult. The problem became more and more complex with the ever increasing use of these vehicles. Eventually, as a material aid in regulating and policing such increasing traffic, there came into being, and into a progressively increasing use by municipalities, a device commonly known as a parking meter. One Court called them ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Campbell v. State
...signals, is performing a governmental function, not a proprietary or administrative function. See also Johnson v. City of Jackson, 194 Tenn. 20, 250 S.W.2d 1, 33 A.L.R.2d 756.' Again without commenting upon the wisdom or lack thereof in retaining judicially conferred immunity from tort liab......
-
City of Austin v. Daniels
...switch to operate all traffic signals in the paths of fire or police vehicles making emergency runs. 9 Johnson v. City of Jackson, 1952, 194 Tenn. 20, 250 S.W.2d 1, 33 A.L.R.2d 756, involved a combination of two governmental functions and liability was denied. There a policeman, riding a mo......
-
Sears v. Metropolitan Nashville Airport
...improvements was governed by the same principles that governed the liability of private individuals. See Johnson v. City of Jackson, 194 Tenn. 20, 22, 250 S.W.2d 1, 2 (1952) (holding that the tort liability of a municipality acting in its proprietary capacity is the same as the tort liabili......
-
Jones v. L & N R. Co.
...to be carried out as an agent of the state, the municipality enjoys the protection of sovereign immunity. Johnson v. City of Jackson, 194 Tenn. 20, 250 S.W.2d 1, 33 A.L.R.2d 756 (1952). This doctrine has been extended to private contractors executing state contracts. Wood v. Foster & Creigh......