Thomas v. Broadlands Community Consol. School Dist. No. 201, Gen. No. 9845

Citation109 N.E.2d 636,348 Ill.App. 567
Decision Date14 November 1952
Docket NumberGen. No. 9845
PartiesTHOMAS v. BROADLANDS COMMUNITY CONSOL. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 201.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

C. E. Tate, Champaign, for appellant.

John Alan Appleman, Urbana, for appellee.

O'CONNOR, Justice.

The questions involved in this appeal are presented in an agreed case pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 48, Ch. 110, § 259.48, Ill.Rev.Stat.1951. The agreed statement of the case so far as material is as follows:

The plaintiff, a minor, sued, through his father as next friend for personal injuries received by him on October 4, 1950, while a student upon the playground, at the recess of the defendant, alleging negligence upon the part of defendant's agents, causing the loss of an eye to plaintiff. Defendant was organized upon May 18, 1946, under Illinois Revised Statutes, Chapter 122, Article 8, as a Community Consolidated School District. The complaint alleged the carrying of liability insurance by defendant in an amount sufficient to pay any judgment recovered, and offered to limit collection of any judgment to the proceeds of such insurance policy. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that the defendant was created nolen volens by general law as a quasi-municipal corporation and as such is a part of the State of Illinois exercising governmental functions and not liable for the acts or negligence of its servants and agents. Upon June 15, 1951, the trial court sustained the motion to dismiss and, the plaintiff electing to abide by his complaint, final judgment was entered upon December 20, 1951, in favor of the defendant and for costs. The following questions were certified by the trial court and counsel for the respective parties to be the only questions of law to be determined upon this appeal:

1. Is the defendant immune from suit for negligence in this case?

2. If immunity exists, does the carrying of liability insurance remove this immunity either completely or to the extent of such insurance?

The decision upon the first question of law presented is free from complexity. Absent the question of insurance, the law in Illinois is clear that a School District, as a quasi-municipal corporation, is not liable for injuries resulting from tort. Kinnare v. City of Chicago, 171 Ill. 332, 49 N.E. 536; Leviton v. Board of Education, 374 Ill. 594, 30 N.E.2d 497; Lincke v. Moline Board of Education, 245 Ill.App. 459; Berwind, Inc. v. Chicago Park District, 393 Ill. 317, 65 N.E.2d 785. We do not understand that plaintiff seriously contends the law is otherwise.

Does the liability insurance in force in behalf of the School District remove its immunity either totally or pro tanto? The answer to that question involves not only an analysis of decisions of this state, but also a research into the bases of the doctrine of governmental immunity.

It is the plaintiff's initial contention that Moore v. Moyle, 405 Ill. 555, 92 N.E.2d 81, is, by analogy, decisive of this case. In the Moore case, supra, the Supreme Court of this State held that a complaint against a defendant charitable institution, alleged to be fully insured, so that a judgment, if obtained in a tort action, would not impair or diminish any funds held by the institution in trust for its charitable purposes, stated a caused of action. In that decision, the Court concluded that the sole object of the doctrine of immunity of charitable corporations from suit for tort was to protect trust funds of charities from depletion through the tortious conduct of their employees and agents. The Court indicated that the immunity granted to charitable corporations was not an absolute one and that such an immunity might be waived. The Court concluded that there was no intention shown in the previous decisions by it to extend the immunity granted to non-trust funds of the charity, and in holding that the plaintiff's complaint stated a cause of action against the charity, said in 405 Ill. on pages 565-566, 92 N.E.2d on page 86:

'We are of the opinion there is no justification for absolute immunity if the trust is protected, because that has been the reason for the rule of absolute immunity. Reason and justice require an extension of the rule in an attempt to inject some humanitarian principles into the abstract rule of absolute immunity. The law is not static and must follow and conform to changing conditions and new trends in human relations to justify its existence as a servant and protector of the people and, when necessary, new remedies must be applied where none exist.' (Italics supplied.)

We note that the doctrines of charitable immunity have had considerable effect on the doctrines pertaining to municipal immunity. The charity cases, as in the Moore cases, supra, have often turned on the 'trust fund' theory. In a scholarly and exhausive article entitled 'Municipal Tort Liability in Operation,' 54 Harv.L.Rev., 437-441, Professors Fuller and Casner state that although of decreasing importance, the doctrines of charitable tort immunity have often been closely associated with that of governmental function when the charitable activities were undertaken by public authorities. Thus law first intended for private charities has influenced branches of the public services.

It is thus apparent that if the Moore case, supra, is to be persuasive in this case, as plaintiff contends it should be, that liability insurance must affect the basis or the reason for immunity of quasi-municipal corporations from suit for tort in a manner substantially similar to that in which the reason for charitable immunity was so influenced. The Moore case, supra, held that a charity might be sued. Does insurance destroy the reason for a quasi-corporation's immunity from suit?

Defendant contends not. Defendant states that there is no question concerning trust funds or their invasion where a governmental unit is sued for tort. Defendant's contention is that the basis of governmental immunity is that the state may not be sued without its consent whether it carries insurance or not.

As to quasi-municipal corporations, such as defendant, as we have stated above, the rule is in Illinois, that they are not liable for tort. The reason for the immunity is succinctly stated by the Supreme Court in the Leviton case, supra, [374 Ill. 594 30 N.E.2d 500], when it quoted from Elmore v. Drainage Com'rs, 135 Ill. 269, at pages 599-600, 25 N.E. 1010:

"The non-liability of the public quasi corporation, unless liability is expressly declared, is usually placed upon these grounds: That the corporators are made such nolens volens; that their powers are limited and specific; and that no corporate funds are provided which can, without express provision of law, be appropriated to private indemnification. Consequently, in such case, the liability is one of imperfect obligation, and no civil action lies at the suit of an individual for non-performance of the duty imposed." (Italics supplied.)

Text writers and at least one other case in Illinois have founded immunity upon the involuntary nature of the corporation, or upon the fact that in such a corporation its duties are wholly governmental in nature, that it is thus acting as an arm of the State which does not submit its action to the judgments of Courts and since the quasi-corporation is but a mere agent of the State it is likewise exempted. 18 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, Sec. 53.05, p. 151; Lincke v. Moline Board of Education, supra, 245 Ill.App. at pages 462-463.

We are not unmindful of the distinction between a quasi-municipal corporation and a municipal corporation. A discussion of the cases involving municipal corporations exercising governmental functions is in point for the reason that in such cases municipal corporations are likewise acting as an arm of the State, and thus the reasons for immunity are the same as in the quasi-municipal corporation.

The rule is, in regard to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • Evans v. Board of County Com'rs of El Paso County
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Colorado
    • March 22, 1971
    ...... the doctrines of governmental immunity of school districts (Flournoy v. School District No. 1 of ...Kaneland Community Unit District, 18 Ill.2d 11, 163 N.E.2d 89 ...1, 351 P.2d 826 (1960). 8 Thomas v. Broadlands Community Con. School Dist., 348 ......
  • Molitor v. Kaneland Community Unit Dist. No. 302, 302
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • December 16, 1959
    ...of damage claims. Leviton v. Board of Education, 374 Ill. 594, 30 N.E.2d 497; Thomas v. Broadlands Community Consolidated School Dist., 348 Ill.App. 567, 109 N.E.2d Surveying the whole picture of governmental tort law as it stands in Illinois today, the following broad outlines may be obser......
  • Mora v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • October 5, 1977
    ......Kaneland Community Unit Dist., 18 Ill.2d 11, 163 N.E.2d 89, ... way of analogy we note as well that section 2-201 of the Local Governmental and Governmental ... is a decision of the appellate court in Thomas v. Broadlands Community Consolidated School ......
  • Shermoen v. Lindsay
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • December 30, 1968
    ...... he body was swinging was on Hawthorne School Playground, used by the Fargo Park District for ...School Dist. of Argentine & Deerfield, 366 Mich. 217, 114 ... it can be found in the following cases: Thomas v. Broad Lands Community Consolidated School ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • A Reformation Remedy for Educators Professional Liability Insurance Policies
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 65-5, 2016
    • Invalid date
    ...Districts, 74 UMKC L. Rev. 883 (2006).179. Id. at 885.180. Id.181. See, e.g., Thomas v. Broadlands Cmty. Consol. Sch. Dist. No. 201, 109 N.E.2d 636, 640-41 (Ill. App. Ct. 1952) ("The only justifiable reason for the immunity of quasi-municipal corporations from suit for tort is the sound and......

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