Jones v. Jones, 18176

• Decision Date: 06 March 1964
• Docket Number: No. 18176,18176
• Citation: 243 S.C. 600,135 S.E.2d 233
• Parties: S. Howard JONES, Appellant, v. Lillian H. JONES et al., of which South Carolina State Hospital is, Respondent.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

Page 233

135 S.E.2d 233

243 S.C. 600

S. Howard JONES, Appellant, v. Lillian H. JONES et al., of which South Carolina State Hospital is, Respondent.

No. 18176.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 6, 1964.

S. Howard Jones, Sumter, for appellant.

Daniel R. McLeod, Atty. Gen., James S. Verner and B. B. Dunlap, Asst. Attys. Gen., Columbia, for respondent.

BUSSEY, Justice.

Appellant brought an action against his own wife, the Probate Judge of Sumter County, two Sumter physicians, two Richland County Health Officers, Dr. Hall (Superintendent of the South Carolina State Hospital), four staff physicians of the hospital, and South Carolina State Hospital, as defendants.

The appellant alleges numerous tortious acts by the various defendants against the appellant, including a conspiracy to unlawfully arrest and incarcerate him in the hospital, subjecting him to shock and other treatments, against his will, and depriving him of personal and property rights on the contention that appellant was mentally ill, when such was not true.

The Attorney General, on behalf of the South Carolina State Hospital, demurred to the complaint on the grounds that: (1) such defendant was an integral part of the State government, its functions being public and governmental and, as such, it was immune to a suit in an action ex delicto; (2) that such defendant was not a legal entity but only a facility of the State under the direction and control of the Mental Health Commission which itself, as a part of the sovereign, was immune to such a suit, such immunity having not been surrendered or waived by the State.

The circuit judge sustained the demurrer on the ground that the South Carolina State Hospital was a subdivision of the State government and could not be sued in the absence of waiver of immunity, but did not pass upon whether said defendant was or was not a legal entity.

The exceptions of the appellant raise several questions, but, for the most part, they do not reach or touch upon the vital issue in the case, making it unnecessary for us to discuss all the questions raised.

It is unnecessary for us to decide whether or not South Carolina State Hospital is, or is not, a legal entity which can be sued, since this issue was not passed upon by the lower court. Assuming for the sake of argument, however, that it is such a legal entity, the lower court correctly decided that it is immune from suit in this action ex delicto. It is clear that it is a public institution operated by the State of South Carolina under the Constitution and laws of the State to provide and care for the mentally ill. It is clearly nothing more than an agency, instrumentality or subdivision of the State government itself and, hence, cannot be sued in an action in tort in the absence of express legislative consent. This rule of law is elementary in South Carolina, as well as in most other jurisdictions, and is fully discussed in Brooks v. One Motor Bus, 190 S.C. 379, 3 S.E.2d 42, wherein the Court said, inter alia,

'In this state neither the commonwealth nor any of its political subdivisions is liable in an action ex delicto unless made liable by express enactments of the general...