No. 13281
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A
F OTN
1976
THE STATE O MONTANA,
F
A p p l i c a n t and R e l a t o r ,
THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT, and t h e HON. CHARLES
LUEDKE ,
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING:
Counsel of Record :
For R e l a t o r :
Anderson, Symmes, Forbes, P e e t e & Brown, B i l l i n g s ,
Montana
James L. J o n e s a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana
J. Michael Young a r g u e d , Helena, Montana
F o r Respondents:
Keefer and Roybal, B i l l i n g s , Montana
N e i l S. K e e f e r a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana
C a t e , Lynaugh, F i t z g e r a l d and Huss, B i l l i n g s ,
Montana
George Huss a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana
Submitted: March 17, 1976
Decided: lidffi'td i2 1976
Filed :
Mr. J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .
T h i s c a s e i s b e f o r e t h e C o u r t on a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a
r e m e d i a l w r i t f i l e d by t h e S t a t e of Montana t o p r o h i b i t f u r t h e r
p r o c e e d i n g s i n t h e t h i r t e e n t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n Cause
No. 65626, Azure v. C i t y o f B i l l i n g s and S t a t e of Montana. The
b a s i c i s s u e r a i s e d i n t h i s proceeding concerns t h e l i a b i l i t y of
a c i t y and t h e s t a t e f o r t h e n e g l i g e n t a c t s of c i t y p o l i c e
o f f i c e r s i n view o f A r t . 11, 818, 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n and
t h e Montana Comprehensive S t a t e I n s u r a n c e P l a n and T o r t Claims
A c t , s e c t i o n 82-4301 e t s e q . , R.C.M. 1947 ( h e r e i n a f t e r c a l l e d
Tort C l a i m s A c t ) .
The p l a i n t i f f i n No. 65626, J e f f r e y Azure, w a s i n j u r e d
i n 1974 when b e a t e n i n a b a r i n t h e C i t y of B i l l i n g s . For some
t i m e f o l l o w i n g t h e b e a t i n g h e wandered a i m l e s s l y a l o n g t h e s t r e e t s
of B i l l i n g s i n what a p p e a r e d t o be a drunken s t u p o r . A local
r e s i d e n t o b s e r v e d Azure a c t i n g s u s p i c i o u s l y and c a l l e d t h e B i l l i n g s
p o l i c e department. Two o f f i c e r s a r r i v e d a t t h e s c e n e and a r r e s t e d
Azure on a c h a r g e o f drunkenness. Azure w a s booked i n t o t h e c i t y
j a i l and h e l d t h e r e f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y s i x t e e n h o u r s b e f o r e b e i n g
taken t o a l o c a l h o s p i t a l f o r treatment. The p l a i n t i f f a l l e g e s
h e s u f f e r e d s e r i o u s and permanent b r a i n damage as a r e s u l t o f t h e
b e a t i n g and f a i l u r e of t h e C i t y p o l i c e o f f i c e r s t o t a k e him t o
a h o s p i t a l f o r m e d i c a l care.
P r i o r t o commencing t h i s l a w s u i t , Azure f i l e d a t o r t
claim with t h e City. When no a c t i o n w a s t a k e n w i t h i n s i x t y d a y s ,
he f i l e d t h i s s u i t a g a i n s t t h e C i t y . T h e r e a f t e r Azure f i l e d a
t o r t c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e of Montana " t o p l a c e t h e S t a t e of
Montana on n o t i c e of t h i s c l a i m i n t h e e v e n t t h a t t h e d o c t r i n e
s t a t e d i n K i n g f i s h e r v . C i t y of F o r s y t h , 132 Mont. 39, 45, 314
P.2d 876 (1957) i s s t i l l v i a b l e . " More t h a n s i x t y d a y s f o l l o w -
i n g , p l a i n t i f f f i l e d a n amended c o m p l a i n t a d d i n g t h e S t a t e as a
defendant.
S u b s t a n t i a l d i s c o v e r y was u n d e r t a k e n , i n c l u d i n g t h e
t a k i n g o f a d e p o s i t i o n from t h e c h i e f of p o l i c e of t h e C i t y .
The S t a t e moved t o be d i s m i s s e d and t h e C i t y moved f o r sum-
mary judgment. Azure r e s i s t e d b o t h m o t i o n s , c o n t e n d i n g t h a t
b o t h t h e C i t y and S t a t e a r e l i a b l e . The S t a t e contended t h a t
t h e C i t y i s v i c a r i o u s l y l i a b l e f o r t h e a c t s of i t s employees,
and t h a t no m a s t e r - s e r v a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s between t h e
S t a t e and members o f t h e B i l l i n g s P o l i c e Department. The C i t y
contended t h a t p o l i c e o f f i c e r s of m u n i c i p a l c o r p o r a t i o n s a r e
a g e n t s of t h e S t a t e and n o t o f t h e C i t y and t h a t o n l y t h e S t a t e
c a n be l i a b l e under t h e d o c t r i n e of r e s p o n d e a t s u p e r i o r . The
l a t t e r argument i s based on o u r h o l d i n g s i n K i n g f i s h e r and a
l a t e r s u p p o r t i n g d e c i s i o n , B o e t t g e r v. Emp. L i a b i l i t y Assur.
Corp., 158 Mont. 258, 262, 490 P.2d 717. On J a n u a r y 1 6 , 1976,
t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e C i t y ' s motion f o r summary judg-
ment i n i t s f a v o r and d e n i e d t h e S t a t e ' s motion t o d i s m i s s .
P l a i n t i f f Azure a p p e a l e d from t h e d e c i s i o n h o l d i n g t h e
City not liable. The S t a t e a p p l i e d t o t h i s C o u r t f o r r e l i e f i n
o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h i t s freedom from l i a b i l i t y and o b v i a t e i t s
d e f e n s e i n t h e main a c t i o n . On F e b r u a r y 2 4 , 1976, w e e n t e r e d
an o r d e r accepting j u r i s d i c t i o n , c o n s o l i d a t i n g t h i s o r i g i n a l pro-
c e e d i n g w i t h t h e pending a p p e a l , and s t a y i n g f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s
i n the d i s t r i c t court.
The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d a r e :
1. May t h e C i t y of B i l l i n g s be h e l d l i a b l e f o r t h e neg-
l i g e n t a c t s of p o l i c e o f f i c e r s employed by i t ?
2. May t h e S t a t e of Montana be h e l d l i a b l e f o r t h e neg-
l i g e n t a c t s of p o l i c e o f f i c e r s employed by Montana m u n i c i p a l i t i e s ?
The arguments of a l l p a r t i e s f o c u s on two a r e a s : the
v i t a l i t y of t h e K i n g f i s h e r and B o e t t g e r d e c i s i o n s a s t h e y r e l a t e
t o m u n i c i p a l l i a b i l i t y f o r p o l i c e c o n d u c t ; and t h e a b r o g a t i o n
i n Montana of t h e d o c t r i n e o f s o v e r e i g n immunity t h r o u g h t h e
1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n and t h e T o r t C l a i m s Act.
K i n g f i s h e r , d e c i d e d i n 1957, s t a n d s f o r t h e p o s i t i o n
l o n g adhered t o by t h e c o u r t s and l e g i s l a t u r e of t h i s s t a t e
p r i o r t o 1972 t h a t t h e s o v e r e i g n was immune from s u i t i n t h e
a b s e n c e o f i t s c o n s e n t t o be sued. I n an a c t i o n a g a i n s t a c i t y
and i t s policeman f o r wrongful d e a t h , it was h e l d t h a t c i t y
p o l i c e f u n c t i o n s w e r e "governmental" f u n c t i o n s o r d a i n e d by and
f o r t h e b e n e f i t of t h e state a t large. Therefore, " * * * a
c i t y policeman i n e n f o r c i n g c i t y o r d i n a n c e s i s a c t i n g a s an
a g e n t o f t h e s t a t e , and * * * t h e c i t y i s t h e r e f o r e n o t respon-
s i b l e i n damages f o r h i s c o n d u c t . "
Taking t h e "agency" f a c t o r one s t e p f u r t h e r , t h i s C o u r t
s t a t e d i n Boettger:
"Our d e c i s i o n i n K i n g f i s h e r i s n o t bottomed
on t h e p r i n c i p l e of s o v e r e i g n immunity a t a l l ;
on t h e c o n t r a r y it rests on t h e a b s e n c e of a
p r i n c i p a l - a g e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e c i t y
and t h e policemen, t h e r e b y r e n d e r i n g t h e d o c t r i n e
of r e s p o n d e a t s u p e r i o r i n a p p l i c a b l e . "
The C o u r t a f f i r m e d t h e d i s m i s s a l o f a c i t y and i t s mayor and
councilmen from a wrongful d e a t h a c t i o n " b e c a u s e t h e n e c e s s a r y
e l e m e n t of agency i s l a c k i n g . "
Subsequent t o t h e s e c a s e s t h e 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n
was r a t i f i e d . Art. 11, S18 s t a t e s i n r e l e v a n t p a r t :
"The s t a t e , c o u n t i e s , c i t i e s , towns, and a l l o t h e r
l o c a l governmental e n t i t i e s s h a l l have no immunity
from s u i t f o r i n j u r y t o a p e r s o n o r p r o p e r t y * * *."
The T o r t Claims Act of 1973 implements t h e q u o t e d Con-
s t i t u t i o n a l provision. "Governmental e n t i t i e s " a r e d e f i n e d t o
i n c l u d e , among o t h e r t h i n g s , c i t i e s and m u n i c i p a l c o r p o r a t i o n s .
s e c t i o n 82-4302 ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) , R.C.M. 1947.
S e c t i o n 82-4310 s t a t e s :
"Every governmental e n t i t y i s s u b j e c t t o
liability for its torts and those of its employees
acting within the scope of their employment or
duties whether arising out of a governmental
or proprietary function."
Section 82-4302(4) defines "Employee" as:
" * * * an officer, employee, or servant of a
governmental entity, including elected or appointed
officials, and persons acting on behalf of the
governmental entity in any official capacity
temporarily or permanently in the service of the
governmental entity whether with or without com-
pensation * * *."
Clearly Art. 11, 518, and the Tort Claims Act are direct
overrulings by the people and the legislature, respectively, of
our holdings in Kingfisher and Boettger.
Notwithstanding the interpretation advanced in Boettger,
Kingfisher is a sovereign immunity case as evidenced by its
classic distinction between "governmental" and "proprietary"
functions, Kingfisher at 44 and cases cited; see Prosser on Torts
4th ed. 1971, 5131, pp. 977-87. This artificial distinction has
been expressly abrogated by the last clause of section 82-4310.
As for the "absence of a principal-agent relationship be-
tween the city and the policemen", as stated in Boettger, the
definition of "employee" in section 82-4302(4) makes such an
assertion untenable. In addition, reference to the ~etropolitan
Police Law, section 11-1801 et seq., R.C.M. 1947, makes it
abundantly clear that the principals of municipal government are
in direct control of municipal police departments. The deposition
taken of the Billings chief of police establishes several of the
facets of a principal-agent relationship, or more accurately a
master-servant relationship, between the City and the policemen.
The most significant factor in this regard is that the City has
the exclusive power to hire and fire its police officers. See
53 Am Jur 2d,Master and Servant, 52. The power in the City to
control its policemen in both broad and detailed affairs related
to their work brings the policemen squarely within the definition
of "employee" and s u b j e c t s t h e C i t y t o l i a b i l i t y under t h e t e r m s
of S e c t i o n 82-4310 f o r t o r t s of i t s employees " * * * acting
w i t h i n t h e scope o f t h e i r employment o r d u t i e s * * *."
While t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r s a r e t h e s e r v a n t s of t h e C i t y ,
it c a n n o t be s a i d t h a t t h e y a r e s e r v a n t s o r a g e n t s of t h e S t a t e .
The S t a t e e x e r c i s e s no d i r e c t , d e t a i l e d o r d a i l y s u p e r v i s i o n
o v e r C i t y policemen; it i s p o w e r l e s s t o a v o i d o r p r e v e n t n e g l i -
g e n t a c t s by them. I t c a n n o t pay, h i r e o r f i r e C i t y policemen,
and i t d o e s n o t p r o v i d e p o l i c e s e r v i c e s f o r t h e C i t y . In short,
t h e S t a t e d o e s n o t c o n t r o l t h e a c t i v i t i e s of C i t y p o l i c e o f f i c e r s
and c a n n o t be h e l d r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e i r n e g l i g e n c e .
Furthermore, t h e scheme o f t h e T o r t Claims Act r e v e a l s
t h e l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t t o make c i t i e s and o t h e r p o l i t i c a l sub-
d i v i s i o n s r e s p o n s i b l e and l i a b l e f o r t h e n e g l i g e n c e o f t h e i r
employees, r a t h e r t h a n t h e S t a t e . S e c t i o n 82-4303 p r o v i d e s f o r
s t a t e p u r c h a s e of i n s u r a n c e t o c o v e r t h e e x p o s u r e s c r e a t e d by
t h e 1972 C o n s t i t u t i o n . S e c t i o n 82-4306 e x t e n d s t o a l l p o l i t i c a l
s u b d i v i s i o n s t h e same a u t h o r i t y t o p r o c u r e i n s u r a n c e . Section
82-4309 a u t h o r i z e s p o l i t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n s t o l e v y t a x e s t o pay
t h e premiums f o r such i n s u r a n c e . S e c t i o n 82-4318 a l l o w s t h e
g o v e r n i n g body of e a c h p o l i t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n t o compromise and
s e t t l e any c l a i m f i l e d a g a i n s t i t . S e c t i o n 82-4326 a u t h o r i z e s
p o l i t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n s t o l e v y and c o l l e c t t a x e s a t t h e e a r l i e s t
p o s s i b l e t i m e t o pay a c l a i m f o r which t h e r e i s no i n s u r a n c e o r
o t h e r fund a v a i l a b l e . It i s c l e a r t h a t p o l i t i c a l subdivisions
such a s t h e C i t y a r e f i n a n c i a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e , t o t h e e x c l u s i o n
of t h e S t a t e , f o r t h e c o n d u c t of t h e i r employees.
I n summary, we h o l d t h a t t h e C i t y may be h e l d l i a b l e f o r
t h e n e g l i g e n c e of i t s p o l i c e o f f i c e r s and t h e S t a t e i s n o t
r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e c o n d u c t of C i t y p o l i c e a c t i n g w i t h i n t h e
scope of t h e i r employment. K i n g f i s h e r and B o e t t g e r no l o n g e r
r e p r e s e n t t h e law i n Montana w i t h r e s p e c t t o m u n i c i p a l l i a b i l i t y
f o r p o l i c e c o n d u c t b e c a u s e of t h e a d o p t i o n of t h e 1972 Con-
s t i t u t i o n and t h e T o r t Claims Act. W e e x p r e s s no o p i n i o n on
t h e u l t i m a t e l i a b i l i t y of t h e C i t y under t h e f a c t s o f t h i s case
a s t h i s must a w a i t f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s .
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g t h e C i t y ' s motion
and d e n y i n g t h e S t a t e ' s motion. These r u l i n g s a r e v a c a t e d . The
motion of t h e C i t y of B i l l i n g s f o r summary judgment i s d e n i e d ,
and t h e S t a t e ' s motion t o d i s m i s s i s g r a n t e d i n Cause No. 6 5 6 2 6
i n the d i s t r i c t court.
Justice
W e concur:
tices
J a c k Shanstrom, d i s t r i c t
d g e , s i t t i n g i n p l a c e of M r .
h i e £ J u s t i c e James T . H a r r i s o n .