Turk v. Board of Education of Monroe County

• Decision Date: 18 December 1930
• Docket Number: 1 Div. 622.
• Citation: 131 So. 436,222 Ala. 177
• Parties: TURK v. COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MONROE COUNTY.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

131 So. 436

222 Ala. 177

TURK v. COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MONROE COUNTY.

1 Div. 622.

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 18, 1930

Appeal from Circuit Court, Monroe County; F. W. Hare, Judge.

Action for damages for personal injuries by Floyd Turk, a minor suing by his next friend, W. J. Turk, Jr., against the County Board of Education of Monroe County. Plaintiff takes a nonsuit and appeals from adverse rulings on pleading sustaining a demurrer to the complaint.

Affirmed.

J. D Ratcliffe, of Monroeville, for appellant.

L. S. Biggs, of Monroeville, for appellee.

GARDNER J.

Plaintiff, a minor and public school pupil, seeks damages from the county board of education of Monroe county, for personal injuries received as a consequence of the alleged negligent conduct of the school bus driver while plaintiff was upon the school grounds.

We are of the opinion the demurrer to the complaint was properly sustained.

The county board of education has been designated as a quasi corporation, an independent agency of the state for the purposes enumerated in the statute. Greeson Mfg. Co. v. County Board of Education, 217 Ala. 565, 117 So. 163; Kimmons v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 204 Ala. 384, 85 So. 774. "In this country it is regarded as the duty of the state to establish and maintain at the expense of the tax payers a system of education for all children who live within its limits, and if, for purposes of convenient administration, this duty is delegated to the municipal corporations of the state, or to quasi corporations formed for the purpose, the duty is still public and governmental, and such corporations, or quasi corporations, cannot be held liable for the negligence of their employees in performing it." 19 R. C. L. p. 1124.

The foregoing states the general rule of law, supported by the overwhelming weight of authority. 24 R. C. L. p. 604; Isidor Gold v. Mayor, etc., of Baltimore, 137 Md. 335, 112 A. 588, 14 A. L. R. 1389, note; Harry Lee Dick v. Board of Education (Mo. Sup.) 238 S.W. 1073, 21 A. L. R. 1327, note; Stovall v. Toppenish School District, 110 Wash. 97, 188 P. 12, 9 A. L. R. 908, note; School District No. 48 v. Rivera, 30 Ariz. 1, 243 P. 609, 45 A. L. R. 762, note; Herman v. Board of Education, 234 N.Y. 196, 137 N.E. 24, 24 A. L. R. 1065, note.

The following excerpt from the opinion of the Arizona court in School District v. Rivera, supra, well expresses the reason underlying this general rule:

"A school district, under our system of government, is merely an agency of the state. As is said in Freel v. Crawfordsville, 142 Ind. 27, 37 L. R. A. 301, 41 N.E. 312: 'They are involuntary corporations, organized not for the purpose of profit or gain but solely for the public benefit, and have only such limited powers as were deemed necessary for that purpose. Such corporations are but the agents of the state, for the sole purpose of administering the state system of public education. *** In performing the duties required of them they exercise merely a public function and agency for the public good for which they receive no private or corporate benefit. School corporations, therefore, are governed by the same law in respect to their liability to individuals for the negligence of their officers or agents as are counties and townships. It is well established that where subdivisions of the state are organized solely for a public purpose, by a general law, that no action lies against them for an injury received by a person on account of the negligence of the officers of such subdivision, unless a right of action is expressly given by statute. Such subdivisions then, as counties, townships, and school corporations, are instrumentalities of government, and exercise authority given by the state, and are no more liable for the acts or omissions of their officers than the state.' Anderson v. Board of Education, 49 N.D. 181, 190 N.W. 807; Board of Education v. Volk, 72 Ohio St. 469, 74 N.E. 646 [18 Am. Neg. Rep. 581]; McClure Bros. v. School Dist., 79 Mo.App. 80.

"Such being true, the overwhelming weight of authority naturally is to the effect that school districts are not

...