State ex rel. Barthelette v. Sanders, 69999
Decision Date | 13 September 1988 |
Docket Number | No. 69999,69999 |
Citation | 756 S.W.2d 536 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. Ken BARTHELETTE, Relator, v. Honorable James L. SANDERS, Judge, Circuit Court, St. Louis City, Respondent. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Gary L. Gardner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for relator.
Norman A. Selner, St. Louis, for respondent.
This case, presenting issues of "official immunity" and the "public duty" doctrine, arises from the drowning death of Michael J. Brenneisen, a sixteen-year-old boy, while swimming on a Boy Scout expedition in August 1985 at Johnson Shut-Ins State Park. The Black River was swollen during a flash flood and as he swam in the river, Michael was caught by the current and swept to his death. His body was later found caught in a submerged ball of tree roots, and Michael's father, joined by his mother as an intervenor plaintiff, brought a wrongful death action naming the Boy Scouts, the scoutmaster, a park ranger, and relator Ken Barthelette, the Superintendent of Johnson Shut-Ins State Park, as defendants. It was alleged that relator "had a duty to insure the safety of those visiting the Shut-Ins area," and in particular, to warn the boys not to enter the river, to close access to the river and to remove the root ball.
Relator, relying on the public duty doctrine, filed his motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which the trial court overruled without prejudice. Relator then sought prohibition in the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, and failing there, petitioned for a writ in this Court. We issued our preliminary rule prohibiting the trial court from proceeding further against relator, and now make that provisional rule absolute.
The official immunity doctrine protects relator from liability in this case. 1 This long-established doctrine provides that "public officers acting within the scope of their authority are not liable for injuries arising from their discretionary acts or omissions, but they may be held liable for torts committed when acting in a ministerial capacity." Kanagawa v. State By and Through Freeman, 685 S.W.2d 831, 835 (Mo. banc 1985). Id. at 836 (quoting Rustici v. Weidemeyer, 673 S.W.2d 762, 769 (Mo. banc 1984)).
A number of the cited cases afford guidance in determining whether vel non relator performed a discretionary function in regard to safety precautions on the Black River. Boucher v. Fuhlbruck, 26 Conn.Sup. 79, 213 A.2d 455 (1965), is remarkably similar on the facts to the case before us. There a young boy drowned while swimming in a river flowing through a city park, and in the suit for his death, the park superintendent and the director of parks, among other city employees, were named as defendants. The plaintiff, as in the case at bar, alleged that defendants failed to post warnings and to barricade the river. The court held that the defendants' conduct was discretionary, and therefore no duty was owed to the decedent. 213 A.2d at 457.
The Missouri Court of Appeals relied heavily on Boucher in Jackson v. Wilson, 581 S.W.2d 39 (Mo.App.1979), a case in which a swimmer was seriously injured when he dove from a boulder near a swimming area in St. Francois State Park. In his suit against the Director of the Division of Parks and Recreation, Department of Natural Resources, the plaintiff raised several of the same allegations now before us: that the Director failed to post warning signs, that he failed to warn the plaintiff of the danger, and failed to close access to the river. The court held that the complaint was leveled at discretionary conduct protected by the doctrine of official immunity and that the Director's motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action was thus appropriately granted.
More recently, in Cox v. Department of Natural Resources, 699 S.W.2d 443 (Mo.App.1985), a boy was seriously injured when he dove into a swimming area in a state park and struck his head on a submerged tree stump. The defendants included directors of the Department of Natural Resources and the Division of Parks, as well as an associate director of the Division of Parks, and the court held that these administrators were protected by official immunity. Id. at 446, 448. As to a regional supervisor of the Division of Parks and the superintendents of the park where the incident occurred, the court applied the public duty rule, discussed infra, rather than the official immunity doctrine, as the basis for upholding its dismissal of plaintiff's action as to that defendant. Id. at 449.
We hold that relator, as superintendent of the Johnson Shut-Ins State Park, performed a discretionary function in regard to safety measures on the Black River, and is therefore entitled to official immunity, and in so doing find the following language from Meyer v. Carman, 271 Wis. 329, 73 N.W.2d 514, 515 (1955), quoted in Jackson, 581 S.W.2d at 44, and Cox, 699 S.W.2d at 448, persuasive: "[a]t first blush it might appear that the duty to keep [the river] 'safe' is ministerial in character, but it is apparent on closer analysis that a great many circumstances may need to be considered in deciding what action is necessary to do so, and such decisions involve the exercise of judgment or discretion rather than the mere performance of a prescribed task." As this court has previously stated, all those who exercise discretion while acting in an official capacity are entitled to immunity. Green v. Denison, 738 S.W.2d 861, 865 (Mo. banc 1987). See also Kanagawa, 685 S.W.2d at 836-37 ( ). Our decision effectuates the central policy underlying official immunity--"society's compelling interest in vigorous and effective administration of public affairs requires that the law protect those...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ezell v. Cockrell
... ... , the trial court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and the Court of ... Louis Park, 279 N.W.2d 801 (Minn.1979); State ex rel. Barthelette v. Sanders, 756 S.W.2d 536 (Mo.1988); ... ...
-
Holsten v. Massey
...cited to support the above conclusion in Ezell: Shearer v. Town of Gulf Shores, 454 So.2d 978, 979 (Ala.1984); State ex rel. Barthelette v. Sanders, 756 S.W.2d 536 (Mo.1988); Phillips v. City of Billings, 233 Mont. 249, 758 P.2d 772, 775 (1988); Braswell v. Braswell, 330 N.C. 363, 410 S.E.2......
-
Jean W. v. Com.
... ... 754 (1974), contending that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim because the defendants did not owe the plaintiffs a ... Sanders, 756 S.W.2d 536, 538 (Mo.1988); Frye v. Clark County, 97 ... ...
-
Wallace v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce
... ... OHIO DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, DIVISION OF STATE FIRE MARSHAL, Appellee ... No. 2000-2178 ... Supreme ... See State ex rel. DeBrosse v. Cool (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 1, 7, 716 N.E.2d ... Barthelette v. Sanders (Mo.1988), 756 S.W.2d 536; Coty v. Washoe Cty ... ...
-
Governmental tort liability in Florida; a tangled web.
...(Mich. 2000) Minnesota, Woehrle v. City of Mankato, 647 N.W.2d 549 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002) Missouri, State ex rel. Barthelette v. Sanders, 756 S.W.2d 536 (Mo. Montana, LaTray v. City of Havre, 999 P.2d 1010 (Mont. 2000) Nevada, Coty v. Washoe County, 839 P.2d 97 (Nev. 1992) New Hampshire, Isl......