Campbell Ex Rel. Campbell v. Pack

Utah Supreme Court

Campbell Ex Rel. Campbell v. Pack

389 P.2d 464, 15 Utah 2d 161, 1964 Utah LEXIS 212

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 20, 1964

Docket9951

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 389 P.2d 464 (Campbell Ex Rel. Campbell v. Pack) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Campbell Ex Rel. Campbell v. Pack, 389 P.2d 464, 15 Utah 2d 161, 1964 Utah LEXIS 212 (Utah 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Douglas Campbell, a 14-year-old boy, by his father as guardian ad litem, sued to recover for injury impairing the sight of his eye caused by a metal particle thrown by a machine during a shop class at Olympus Junior High School in Salt Lake County. The trial court granted the motion of the defendant Board of Education to dismiss on the ground that it is protected by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Plaintiffs appeal.

Plaintiff concedes that the dismissal is supported by the prior pronouncements of this court that school districts are instru-mentalities of the state acting in its behalf in educating children and as such partake of its sovereign immunity. Bingham v. Board of Education of Ogden City, 118 Utah 582, 223 P.2d 432 (1950) ; Woodcock v. Board of Education of Salt Lake City, 55 Utah 458, 187 P. 181, 10 A.L.R. 181 (1920) ; see also Cobia v. Roy City, 12 Utah 2d 375, 366 P.2d 986; Davis v. Provo City Corp., 1 Utah 2d 244, 265 P.2d 415; Rami *162 rez v. Ogden City, 3 Utah 2d 102, 279 P.2d 463; Brinkerhoff v. Salt Lake City, 13 Utah 2d 214, 371 P.2d 211.

In an able and persuasive brief and argument, of which we are duly appreciative, plaintiffs’ counsel contends that we should now judicially change that rule. The genesis and history of this doctrine, including recent developments, is extensively and capably treated by Justice Lockwood in the recent case of Stone v. Arizona Highway Comm., 93 Ariz, 384, 381 P.2d 107 (1963).

With due deference to the authorities cited, and the reasoning set forth by them, we are not persuadfed of the propriety’ of judicially changing this rule, which is adhered to by a majority of our sister states. ' See Anno. 86 A.L.R.2d 489, et seq. it has always been the law of this state and' the activities, operations and contracts of' the state government and other public en-' tifies protected.by it are based upon that understanding of the law. For the reasons set forth in the.cases heretofore decided by this .court referred to above, we believe that if-there is to be a .change which would have such an important effect upon public institutions and their, operations, it should be left entirely to the legislature to determine whether, the .immunity .should be removed; and as to ,what agencies; .when effective,, and to what extent, if any, limitations should be prescribed.

.Affirmed-!

!N.o. costs ;awarded. .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Douglas Campbell, a 14-year-old boy, by his father as guardian ad litem, sued to recover for injury impairing the sight of his eye caused by a metal particle thrown by a machine during a shop class at Olympus Junior High School in Salt Lake County. The trial court granted the motion of the defendant Board of Education to dismiss on the ground that it is protected by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Plaintiffs appeal.

Plaintiff concedes that the dismissal is supported by the prior pronouncements of this court that school districts are instru-mentalities of the state acting in its behalf in educating children and as such partake of its sovereign immunity. Bingham v. Board of Education of Ogden City, 118 Utah 582, 223 P.2d 432 (1950) ; Woodcock v. Board of Education of Salt Lake City, 55 Utah 458, 187 P. 181, 10 A.L.R. 181 (1920) ; see also Cobia v. Roy City, 12 Utah 2d 375, 366 P.2d 986; Davis v. Provo City Corp., 1 Utah 2d 244, 265 P.2d 415; Rami *162 rez v. Ogden City, 3 Utah 2d 102, 279 P.2d 463; Brinkerhoff v. Salt Lake City, 13 Utah 2d 214, 371 P.2d 211.

In an able and persuasive brief and argument, of which we are duly appreciative, plaintiffs’ counsel contends that we should now judicially change that rule. The genesis and history of this doctrine, including recent developments, is extensively and capably treated by Justice Lockwood in the recent case of Stone v. Arizona Highway Comm., 93 Ariz, 384, 381 P.2d 107 (1963).

With due deference to the authorities cited, and the reasoning set forth by them, we are not persuadfed of the propriety’ of judicially changing this rule, which is adhered to by a majority of our sister states. ' See Anno. 86 A.L.R.2d 489, et seq. it has always been the law of this state and' the activities, operations and contracts of' the state government and other public en-' tifies protected.by it are based upon that understanding of the law. For the reasons set forth in the.cases heretofore decided by this .court referred to above, we believe that if-there is to be a .change which would have such an important effect upon public institutions and their, operations, it should be left entirely to the legislature to determine whether, the .immunity .should be removed; and as to ,what agencies; .when effective,, and to what extent, if any, limitations should be prescribed.

.Affirmed-!

!N.o. costs ;awarded. .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

389 P.2d 464, 15 Utah 2d 161, 1964 Utah LEXIS 212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-ex-rel-campbell-v-pack-utah-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack