Suchergebnisse

The legislative and judicial dismantling of sovereign immunity is among the more significant and celebrated reforms of recent American administrative law. In many instances, this development has given those seeking damages for wrongful governmental action their first and only defendant. Even in situations in which litigants already had a cause of action against individual public officials, making the government amenable to suit has enhanced the chances of actual recovery, since officials often lack the means to satisfy judgments rendered against them. The immunity from liability enjoyed by public officials also has undergone a complex series of changes. Though still in flux, this controversial area of the law today finds officials exposed to a considerable risk of personal liability for the wrongs they commit in connection with their performance of duty. Although these developments might have gone even further in lowering the shield of immunity from the government and its officers, they represent a blessing for the victims of official wrongdoing. However, the emerging coexistence of governmental and officer liability has created a new problem of coordination. Without attempting to define the proper scope of liability for harm arising out of governmental activity, this Article explores various aspects of the coordination problem. After briefly sketching recent developments in governmental and officer immunity, and discussing the need for a coherent system of governmental tort law, I shall examine various ways of integrating governmental and officer tort liability so as to accommodate the purposes that the law of governmental torts may appropriately be asked to serve. A brief look will be taken in this connection at the approaches to the problem that have been adopted in French and German law.

The United States Government owns and operates by far the largest fleet in the Americas. It is a fleet which includes not only the high profile carriers, cruisers and destroyers but a miscellany of tugs, barges, tankers, frigates, car floats and lighters. It includes cargo vessels as well as warships. Thus, the potential for the commission of maritime torts is manifest simply from the number and variety of government vessels at sea. Add the myriad responsibilities exercised by Government agencies such as the United States Coast Guard, and the potential for tortious involvement is enormous.

The purpose of this study is to review the literature of the past twenty years as it relates to tort liability of school districts, boards of education, and teachers, with special emphasis on the field of physical education and related activities such as intramurals and inter-scholastic competition. Recent legislation passed by the Utah legislature is cited. In certain instances this will be contrasted with older laws and practices which still prevail in a good number of states.

This Comment examines and analyzes the two judicially created limitations on governmental tort liability in Washington. It concludes that the discretionary governmental acts immunity is a proper limitation on governmental tort liability, but that the public duty doctrine should be abandoned.

Actions alleging municipal tort liability for negligent administration of building and zoning codes are part of the current judicial and legislative trend to abolish municipal tort immunity. In surveying how such actions are treated, this Comment briefly examines the historical background of governmental immunity. It then categorizes the states according to the scope of governmental tort immunity currently recognized. After establishing these categories, this Comment applies the law under each category to the facts of Preston v. City of Daniellville, the hypothetical case. It then analyzes the public duty defense raised by the municipality, focusing on the origin of the defense and on its continued use as a municipal defense to negligence actions. This Comment concludes by recommending one type of governmental tort claims act which best balances the equities between the injured individual and the municipality.