Appellant
Louisa C. Muskopf, et al.
Appellee
Corning Hospital District
Appellant's Claim
That the hospital district was liable for negligence in the appellant's injury, and not immune from tort liability on the grounds of it's government status.
Chief Lawyers for Appellant
P. M. Barceloux, Burton J. Goldstein
Chief Lawyers for Appellee
Glenn D. Newton, William W. Coshow
Justices for the Court
Maurice P. Dooling, Jr., Phil S. Gibson, Raymond E. Peters, Roger J. Traynor(writing for the court), Thomas P. White
Justices Dissenting
Marshall F. McComb, B. Rey Schauer
Place
Bank, California
Date of Decision
27 January 1961
Decision
That the doctrine of government immunity from tort liability was mistaken, and the hospital district could be held liable.
Significance
The case broadened the scope for individuals bringing suit against municipaland state governments for personal injuries.
Torts and Liability
When Louisa C. Muskopf, a patient with a broken hip, fell in Corning MemorialHospital and further injured her hip, she and her husband sued the hospitaldistrict for negligence. Counsel for the defendant argued--without contendingthe facts of the case--that grounds for a suit had not been established. Theargument, which was sustained by the superior court of Tehama County, held that hospital district was "a state agency exercising a governmental functionand as such was immune from tort liability." A tort is an injury or harmful wrong resulting from something other than a breach of contract for which a citizen can demand restitution. The Supreme Court of California reversed the Tehama County court's judgment on 27 January 1961, firmly rejecting the rule ofgovernmental immunity from tort liability.
Sovereign Immunity
The concept that the government is immune from tort liability is sometimes said to stem from the ancient English maxim "The king can do no wrong." One reading of this maxim interprets it as the basis for the common law concept of "sovereign immunity," which precludes a suit against the sovereign without thesovereign's consent. The purpose of sovereign immunity, however, was not todeny the injured restitution, but rather to indicate that the king's courts could not have jurisdiction over the king.
Justice Traynor, noting the concept of sovereign immunity, in his majority opinion went on to provide a history of the court's erosion of the rule of governmental immunity. He acknowledged that the rule is "riddled with exceptions." First, municipal corporations were "held subject to the court's equitable distribution," then they were "held liable for their proprietary acts." Proprietary acts are those the state undertakes for the benefit of its citizens--such as building a park--rather than those fundamental to it as a government--such as passing laws. According to the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946, whichwas meant to give citizens harmed by the government a means of obtaining relief, there is no governmental immunity for proprietary acts. Although some forms of immunity have been consistently upheld by the courts, such as immunityfrom citizens suing the government for injuries incurred while serving in themilitary during an act of war, Traynor wrote that "for years the process oferosion of governmental immunity has gone on unabated." Traynor noted that this erosion was not necessarily negative, though. Although suits against municipalities, states, or the federal government imposed a burden on the public,the court held that "[p]ublic convenience does not outweigh individual compensation."
The Narrowing of Immunity
An additional issue was raised by the fact that much of that erosion had occurred legislatively. The dissenting judges in Muskopf v. Corning Hospital District held that waiving governmental immunity was the prerogative of the legislature, not the courts, since a series of statutes had removed immunity in specific areas. Traynor's opinion asserted that "a series of sporadic statutes, each operating in a separate area of governmental immunity" did not prevent the court from accepting or rejecting immunity in other areas.
Overall, the decision reached was representative of the ongoing move away from the idea of sovereign immunity. Although citizens always had the ability tosue particular individuals for the redress of injuries, public opinion throughout the twentieth century increasingly favored the idea that the governmentshould be held accountable if they inflict wrongs. The narrowing of immunities available to state and local government agencies was partly the result ofthe Civil Rights movement, which saw more and more individuals taking actionagainst official harrassment and intimidation, and more and more demands foraccountability on the part of government.
Related Cases
Tort Liability
A tort is an act of wrongdoing which violates the laws as they apply to all persons--as opposed to the rules that govern the signers of a contract--and for which damages may be claimed. Torts are identified either as intentional, or as arising from negligence. When someone seeks damages from another party on the basis of a tort, this is called a tort action, and tort liability relates to the exposure of a given party to a tort action.
As the frequency of tort actions has risen, beginning in the 1970s, so has the prevalence of concern over tort liability. This has had effects both beneficial and detrimental to the health of American society. On the one hand, individuals and corporations are much more circumspect regarding the kind of careless behavior that could lead to a tort action on the basis of negligence. Thus for instance a manager of a fast-food restaurant might tell an employee tomop up a spill before any customers slip on the floor, because the wet flooris "a lawsuit waiting to happen." On the other hand, people have been proneto take advantage of the comfortable financial positions of corporations by taking them to court for any wrongdoing.
Sources
"Tort Liability." Fort Hays State University, http://bigcat.fhsu.edu.
Louisa C. Muskopf, et al.
Appellee
Corning Hospital District
Appellant's Claim
That the hospital district was liable for negligence in the appellant's injury, and not immune from tort liability on the grounds of it's government status.
Chief Lawyers for Appellant
P. M. Barceloux, Burton J. Goldstein
Chief Lawyers for Appellee
Glenn D. Newton, William W. Coshow
Justices for the Court
Maurice P. Dooling, Jr., Phil S. Gibson, Raymond E. Peters, Roger J. Traynor(writing for the court), Thomas P. White
Justices Dissenting
Marshall F. McComb, B. Rey Schauer
Place
Bank, California
Date of Decision
27 January 1961
Decision
That the doctrine of government immunity from tort liability was mistaken, and the hospital district could be held liable.
Significance
The case broadened the scope for individuals bringing suit against municipaland state governments for personal injuries.
Torts and Liability
When Louisa C. Muskopf, a patient with a broken hip, fell in Corning MemorialHospital and further injured her hip, she and her husband sued the hospitaldistrict for negligence. Counsel for the defendant argued--without contendingthe facts of the case--that grounds for a suit had not been established. Theargument, which was sustained by the superior court of Tehama County, held that hospital district was "a state agency exercising a governmental functionand as such was immune from tort liability." A tort is an injury or harmful wrong resulting from something other than a breach of contract for which a citizen can demand restitution. The Supreme Court of California reversed the Tehama County court's judgment on 27 January 1961, firmly rejecting the rule ofgovernmental immunity from tort liability.
Sovereign Immunity
The concept that the government is immune from tort liability is sometimes said to stem from the ancient English maxim "The king can do no wrong." One reading of this maxim interprets it as the basis for the common law concept of "sovereign immunity," which precludes a suit against the sovereign without thesovereign's consent. The purpose of sovereign immunity, however, was not todeny the injured restitution, but rather to indicate that the king's courts could not have jurisdiction over the king.
Justice Traynor, noting the concept of sovereign immunity, in his majority opinion went on to provide a history of the court's erosion of the rule of governmental immunity. He acknowledged that the rule is "riddled with exceptions." First, municipal corporations were "held subject to the court's equitable distribution," then they were "held liable for their proprietary acts." Proprietary acts are those the state undertakes for the benefit of its citizens--such as building a park--rather than those fundamental to it as a government--such as passing laws. According to the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946, whichwas meant to give citizens harmed by the government a means of obtaining relief, there is no governmental immunity for proprietary acts. Although some forms of immunity have been consistently upheld by the courts, such as immunityfrom citizens suing the government for injuries incurred while serving in themilitary during an act of war, Traynor wrote that "for years the process oferosion of governmental immunity has gone on unabated." Traynor noted that this erosion was not necessarily negative, though. Although suits against municipalities, states, or the federal government imposed a burden on the public,the court held that "[p]ublic convenience does not outweigh individual compensation."
The Narrowing of Immunity
An additional issue was raised by the fact that much of that erosion had occurred legislatively. The dissenting judges in Muskopf v. Corning Hospital District held that waiving governmental immunity was the prerogative of the legislature, not the courts, since a series of statutes had removed immunity in specific areas. Traynor's opinion asserted that "a series of sporadic statutes, each operating in a separate area of governmental immunity" did not prevent the court from accepting or rejecting immunity in other areas.
Overall, the decision reached was representative of the ongoing move away from the idea of sovereign immunity. Although citizens always had the ability tosue particular individuals for the redress of injuries, public opinion throughout the twentieth century increasingly favored the idea that the governmentshould be held accountable if they inflict wrongs. The narrowing of immunities available to state and local government agencies was partly the result ofthe Civil Rights movement, which saw more and more individuals taking actionagainst official harrassment and intimidation, and more and more demands foraccountability on the part of government.
Related Cases
- Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306 (1979).
- Nixon v. Fitzgerald 457 U.S. 731 (1982).
- Crawford-El v. Britton, 118 S.Ct. 1584 (1998).
Tort Liability
A tort is an act of wrongdoing which violates the laws as they apply to all persons--as opposed to the rules that govern the signers of a contract--and for which damages may be claimed. Torts are identified either as intentional, or as arising from negligence. When someone seeks damages from another party on the basis of a tort, this is called a tort action, and tort liability relates to the exposure of a given party to a tort action.
As the frequency of tort actions has risen, beginning in the 1970s, so has the prevalence of concern over tort liability. This has had effects both beneficial and detrimental to the health of American society. On the one hand, individuals and corporations are much more circumspect regarding the kind of careless behavior that could lead to a tort action on the basis of negligence. Thus for instance a manager of a fast-food restaurant might tell an employee tomop up a spill before any customers slip on the floor, because the wet flooris "a lawsuit waiting to happen." On the other hand, people have been proneto take advantage of the comfortable financial positions of corporations by taking them to court for any wrongdoing.
Sources
"Tort Liability." Fort Hays State University, http://bigcat.fhsu.edu.
Further Readings
- Schuck, Peter H. Suing Government: Judicial Remedies for OfficialWrongs. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983.
User Comments Add a comment…