Ryan v. State

Decision Date17 December 1982
Docket NumberNo. 16122-PR,16122-PR
Citation656 P.2d 597,134 Ariz. 308,38 A.L.R.4th 1188
Parties, 38 A.L.R.4th 1188 David J. RYAN and Helen Ryan, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE of Arizona, a body politic; John Moran, individually and as director of the Arizona Department of Corrections; John Kohl, individually and as director of the Arizona Youth Center, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtArizona Supreme Court

Langerman, Begam, Lewis and Marks by Noel Fidel and Frank Lewis, Phoenix, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen., James A. Teilborg, Nicholas T. Adrahtas, David S. Shughart, II, and William R. Jones, Jr., Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for defendants-appellees.

HAYS, Justice.

The Supreme Court granted a petition for review of an opinion affirming the trial court which had granted a summary judgment in favor of the State of Arizona and individual defendants. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-120.24. The opinion of the Court of Appeals, 1 CA-CIV 5242, is vacated, 134 Ariz.App. 327, 656 P.2d 616.

The facts upon which this litigation is based concern a 17-year-old inmate, John Myers, who escaped from custody at the Arizona Youth Center. After his escape, Meyers engaged in the robbery of a convenience market and shot David J. Ryan at point-blank range with a sawed-off shotgun. See State v. Myers, 117 Ariz. 79, 570 P.2d 1252 (1977), for details. Ryan, the victim, sustained serious and permanent injuries.

In the complaint for damages, Ryan alleges that the state and the individual defendants were both negligent and grossly negligent in their supervision of Myers who had a long history of criminal behavior and three previous escapes from the Department of Corrections.

The state and the individual defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis that the allegations of the complaint do not give rise to a duty to the plaintiff individually; the duty which arises is to the public as a whole. The trial court granted the motion and the Court of Appeals, in a two-to-one decision, affirmed.

The Supreme Court granted the appellants' petition for review, and departing from precedent, ordered additional memoranda and oral argument on the following questions:

Should the Supreme Court abandon the doctrine adopted in Massengill v. Yuma County, 104 Ariz. 518, 456 P.2d 376 (1969)?

If so, what limitations if any should be imposed on governmental liability for the acts of its agents?

We are well aware that some of the inconsistencies in our previous opinions in this area of law have made the task of the lower courts more difficult. A full resolution of the many questions in a broad sweeping opinion is also fraught with danger. However, a return to Stone v. Arizona Highway Comm'n, 93 Ariz. 384, 381 P.2d 107 (1963), would make a good starting point. The Court in that opinion said:

"[T]he substantive defense of governmental immunity is now abolished not only for the instant case, but for all other pending cases, those not yet filed which are not barred by the statute of limitations and all future causes of action. All previous decisions to the contrary are overruled.

"There is perhaps no doctrine more firmly established than the principle that liability follows tortious wrongdoing; that where negligence is the proximate cause of injury, the rule is liability and immunity is the exception...."

93 Ariz. at 392, 381 P.2d 107.

It can be said that in subsequent cases we have not always been true to the spirit of the Stone decision that "the rule is liability and immunity is the exception." (Emphasis added).

Here, the appellee-respondents urge that governmental immunity should continue in those instances where the services provided are uniquely governmental in nature. This is the old proprietary-governmental distinction in a bright new word-package. It is not within the spirit of Stone.

We are also told that not only will the public treasury suffer but government will come to a standstill because its agents will be afraid to act. We can't but recall the dire predictions attendant to the publication of the Stone decision. Arizona survived!

In Ruth v. Rhodes, 66 Ariz. 129, 185 P.2d 304 (1947), a state highway patrol officer was sued in tort for damages caused by his alleged negligence. The officer, when responding to a call, struck the truck in which plaintiff was riding. A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and the resulting judgment was affirmed. In affirming, our Supreme Court quoted from Florio v. Schmolz, 101 N.J.L. (16 Gummere) 535, 129 A. 470, 40 A.L.R. 1353:

"We think that a sound public policy requires that public officers and employees shall be held accountable for their negligent acts in the performance of their official duties to those who suffer injury by reason of their misconduct. Public office or employment should not be made a shield to protect careless public officials from the consequences of their misfeasances in the performance of their public duties."

66 Ariz. at 133, 185 P.2d 304.

Even though Ruth came down in 1947, sixteen years before Stone, law enforcement officers continue to perform their duties.

It is quite apparent that the legislature has given consideration to the problems with which we are here concerned. We set forth below some of the pertinent portions in A.R.S. § 41-621, the Risk Management Act:

A. The department of administration shall obtain insurance against loss, to the extent it is determined necessary and in the best interests of the state as provided in subsection C of this section, on the following:

....

3. The state and its departments, agencies, boards and commissions and all officers, agents and employees thereof, against liability for acts or omissions of any nature while acting in authorized governmental or proprietary capacities and in the course and scope of employment or authorization except as prescribed by this chapter.

....

G. A state officer, agent or employee, except as otherwise provided by statute, is not personally liable for an injury or damage resulting from his act or omission in a public official capacity where the act or omission was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in him if the exercise of the discretion was done in good faith without wanton disregard of his statutory duties.

An examination of the statute cited above readily brings forth the conclusion that the legislature recognized that the state is liable for the negligent acts of its agents, whether acting in a governmental or proprietary capacity, and that insurance should be obtained by the state to protect it from financial loss in those cases. We assume that this had been done, and if so, the "horribles" pictured by appellee will not come about. We also note that as in all other negligence actions, plaintiffs still must show that a duty was owed to the plaintiff, that this duty was breached, and that an injury was proximately caused by the breach. Wisener v. State, 123 Ariz. 148, 598 P.2d 511 (1979).

If appellees are concerned that people will be afraid to act in official capacities in Arizona because they might suffer personal liability, A.R.S. § 41-621(G) should allay these fears. This subsection gives state officers, agents and employees immunity from personal liability for discretionary acts done "in good faith without wanton disregard of his statutory duties."

By reason of the foregoing, we conclude that the doctrine in Massengill should be abandoned and that case is overruled. We shall no longer engage in the speculative exercise of determining whether the tort-feasor has a general duty to the injured party, which spells no recovery, or if he had a specific individual duty which means recovery. See Oleszczuk v. State, 124 Ariz. 373, 604 P.2d 637 (1979); State v. Superior Court of Maricopa County, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
128 cases
  • Ezell v. Cockrell
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • June 5, 1995
    ...Cornell L.Rev. at 887.3 See, e.g., 77 Cornell L.Rev. at 887.4 Adams v. State, 555 P.2d 235, 241-42 (Alaska 1976); Ryan v. State, 134 Ariz. 308, 310, 656 P.2d 597, 599 (1982); Leake v. Cain, supra; Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River County, 371 So.2d 1010, 1015 (Fla.1979); Wilson v. Ne......
  • Kenyon v. Hammer
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • September 19, 1984
    ...what those guarantees were designed to prevent. Special privileges and immunities are not favored by Arizona law. Ryan v. State, 134 Ariz. 308, 656 P.2d 597 (1982). In our view, therefore, under an equal protection analysis the compelling interest of the state in reducing malpractice premiu......
  • Irwin v. Town of Ware
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • August 15, 1984
    ...caused by a third person has been recognized for public employees as well as private individuals. See, e.g., Ryan v. State, 134 Ariz. 308, 309-311, 656 P.2d 597 (1982) (jailor's duty to plaintiff from negligent release of inmate; overruling Massengill v. Yuma County, 104 Ariz. 518, 456 P.2d......
  • Benson v. Kutsch
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • March 28, 1989
    ...statutory duty, if breached, may give rise to a cause of action. E.g., Adams v. State, 555 P.2d 235 (Alaska 1976); 7 Ryan v. State, 134 Ariz. 308, 656 P.2d 597 (1982); Coffey v. City of Milwaukee, 74 Wis.2d 526, 247 N.W.2d 132 (1976). However, it appears that in these jurisdictions there ar......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Sovereign Immunity and the Uses of History
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 81, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...Carrier Corp. v. Indian River, 371 So. 2d 1010, 1015 (Fla. 1979) 503. E.g., Adams v. State, 555 P.2d 235, 241 (Ala. 1976); Ryan v. State, 656 P.2d 597, 599 (Ariz. 1982); Martinez v. Lakewood, 655 P.2d 1388, 1390 (Colo. Ct. App. 1982); Wilson v. Nepstad, 282 N.W.2d 664, 671 (Iowa 1979); Stew......
  • TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
    • United States
    • State Bar of Arizona Construction Law Table of Authorities
    • Invalid date
    ...v. Central Commercial Co., 33 Ariz. 349, 264 P. 1081 (1928)............................................. 100, 122Ryan v. State, 134 Ariz. 308, 656 P.2d 597 (1982)................................................................................. 42Ry-Tan Constr., Inc. v. Washington Elementary......
  • Automobile Accidents
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Personal Injury Forms: Discovery & Settlement
    • May 3, 2011
    ...have either criticized, rejected or abolished the public duty doctrine. See 57 Am.Jur.2d 158 (1995 Supp.); see also Ryan v. State , 656 P.2d 597 (Ariz. 1982); Leake v. Cain , 720 P.2d 152 (solo. 1986); Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River County , 371 So.2d 1010 (Flat 1979); Wilson v. N......
  • 110 Contractual Consequence of Government Agency Approval; Governmental and Association Standards
    • United States
    • State Bar of Arizona Construction Law Chapter 1 General Problems of Contractors (101 - 120)
    • Invalid date
    ...the building code. Summary judgment granted for the city was reversed in view of the Arizona Supreme Court decision in Ryan v. State, 134 Ariz. 308, 656 P.2d 597 (1982), overruling the doctrine of governmental immunity as expressed in Massengill v. Yuma County, 104 Ariz. 518, 456 P.2d 376 (......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT