Section 8.4 School District (Sovereign Immunity)

• Library: School Law (2003 Ed. + 2016 Supp)

A. (§8.4) School District (Sovereign Immunity)

When a student is injured while under the care of school officials, an attempt will often be made to sue not only the school official most closely connected with the incident, but the school district itself. This is particularly true in cases where no liability insurance exists to protect the individual defendants.

Until 1977, school districts and other public entities were not subject to liability in suits for negligence because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Smith v. Consol. Sch. Dist. No. 2, 408 S.W.2d 50 (Mo. banc 1966). But in 1977, the Supreme Court of Missouri abrogated sovereign immunity prospectively as to all claims arising on or after August 15, 1978. Jones v. State Highway Comm’n, 557 S.W.2d 225 (Mo. banc 1977). This was done to give the General Assembly time to consider the subject.

The General Assembly’s response to the decision in Jones, 557 S.W.2d 225, was the enactment of §§ 537.600, et seq., now RSMo 2000, reestablishing the doctrine of sovereign immunity as it existed at common law before Jones, except for injuries arising out of the negligent operation of the public body’s motor vehicles and injuries caused by a dangerous condition of a public entity’s property. Delmain v. Meramec Valley R-III Sch. Dist., 671 S.W.2d 415 (Mo. App. E.D. 1984).

In Bartley v. Special School District of St. Louis County, 649 S.W.2d 864 (Mo. banc 1983), the Supreme Court of Missouri held that (1) in the two situations described above, sovereign immunity is waived only when the public entity has acquired liability insurance covering such situations and (2) sovereign immunity remains a defense to claims arising out of situations other than the two set forth in § 537.600, now RSMo 2000, even though insurance has been acquired. But a 1985 amendment to § 537.600 suggests that the two waivers of sovereign immunity are no longer conditioned on the district having insurance coverage. In Winston v. Reorganized School District R-2, Lawrence County, 636 S.W.2d 324 (Mo. banc 1982), it was held that permitting tort claims only in the above two instances does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.

In reaching its decision, the Bartley, 649 S.W.2d 864, Court implied that, under Missouri law, school districts are immune from liability for torts caused by governmental acts but liable for torts arising from proprietary acts. Bartley, 649 S.W.2d at 869. But since then, the Supreme Court has stated in dicta that “[a] school district enjoys sovereign immunity, and there is no need to invoke the proprietary-governmental analysis.” State ex rel. Mo. Dep’t of Agric. v. McHenry...