Rennie v. Belleview School Dist.
| Decision Date | 10 March 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 56996,56996 |
| Citation | 521 S.W.2d 423 |
| Parties | Alexander RENNIE and Tessie Rennie, Appellants, v. BELLEVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Marvin L. Dinger, Ironton, Donald P. Thomasson, Cape Girardeau, for plaintiffs-appellants.
John A. Schneider, Samuel Richeson, Dearing, Richeson, Roberts & Wegmann, Hillsboro, for defendants-respondents.
This is an action for damages involving the governmental immunity rule.
Plaintiffs are the surviving parents of Larry Rennie, who was nine years of age on August 26, 1968, when he was killed on the playground of defendant school district while playing on a swing set.
Plaintiffs brought suit against the school district; against defendants McKinney, Wallis, Price, Douglas, Sutton, and Thomas (members of the school board); and against Roberts (the Superintendent), Benson (a teacher), and Ruh (a custodian).
A motion for summary judgment was filed in behalf of the school district and the members of the board. On May 3, 1971, the trial court entered an order of summary judgment on behalf of the defendant school district and its board members, holding that on the basis of the pleadings, the depositions, the admissions in the record, and the affidavits, '. . . there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the said defendants are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'
Plaintiffs appealed to this Court, and the case was heard by the Court en Banc on September 24, 1974.
Plaintiffs assert that the trial court 'erred in sustaining the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants for the reason that the doctrine of sovereign immunity should be abolished by judicial decree.' The case of O'Dell et al. v. School District of Independence, Missouri, 521 S.W.2d 403 (Mo. banc 1974), decided concurrently herewith, is controlling on this assertion. In O'Dell, supra, we declined to abolish the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.
Plaintiffs next assert that 'the doctrine of governmental immunity should not be applied to a school district where the negligent act involves a ministerial duty in connection with a proprietary function of maintaining of playground at the school.'
It would serve no useful purpose in this case, involving a school district and not a municipality, to enter the maze of the 'governmental-proprietary' dichotomy. Cf. Watson v. Kansas City, 499 S.W.2d 515 (Mo. banc 1973). In any event, a school district, in maintaining a playground at school, is functioning as an arm of the State in a governmental capacity.
Plaintiffs finally assert that the school district board members should be held individually liable 'because the doctrine of governmental immunity is not applicable to negligent acts of individual school board members constituting nonfeasance and malfeasance while engaged wholly in performing a ministerial function.'
In their brief, plaintiffs charge the board members with nonfeasance and malfeasance 'in failing to inspect the school premises, failing to provide deceased with a safe playground area, failing to inspect, repair or anchor the swing set, and in permitting and allowing said swing set to remain on the school playground as a death trap throughout the entire summer months and at the start of the fall school term.'
In Antin v. Union High School Dist., 130 Or. 461, 280 P. 664, 667 (Or.1929), appears the following:
'There remains only the question of whether directors of a school district are personally liable for the consequences resulting from the negligent installation on school premises, for school purposes, by an employee of the district employed by them, of a tank without any safety device, which tank, because of the high pressure required for its operation, was liable to explode and cause injury, unless such safety device was employed to render its operation safe, and which later did explode and cause the death of a pupil, who was lawfully in attendance upon the school at the time of its explosion.
'There is no allegation in the complaint that the person employed to install the tank was not competent, nor that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Dell v. School Dist. of Independence
...transferred from Division One of the Court to the Court en Banc on the Court's own motion. On July 22, 1974, Rennie et al. v. Belleview School District et al., 521 S.W.2d 423, was transferred from Division Two of this Court to the Court en Banc. Both cases were heard September 24, 1974, by ......
-
Coalition to Preserve Educ. on the Westside v. School Dist. of Kansas City, WD
...353 (Mo.App.1982) where construction, maintenance and repair of school buildings was held to be governmental, citing Rennie v. Belleview School District, 521 S.W.2d 423 (Mo. banc 1975); Todd v. Curators of University of Missouri, 347 Mo. 460, 147 S.W.2d 1063 (1941); and State ex rel. Allen ......
-
Lawrence v. Board of Police Com'rs
...of the Board members from the state law claim in Count I on the theory that respondeat superior is inapplicable. Reenie v. Belleview School District, 521 S.W.2d 423, 425 (Mo. banc 1975); Jackson v. Wilson, 581 S.W.2d at 46. Defendants' argument lacks merit, however, because plaintiff does n......
-
Kersey v. Harbin
...tort, as none was committed.' On this appeal, the plaintiffs do not challenge the immunity of the school district, Rennie v. Belleview School District, 521 S.W.2d 423 (Mo. banc 1975); O'Dell v. School District of Independence, 521 S.W.2d 403 (Mo. banc 1975), cert. denied, --- U.S. ---, 96 S......