holding that a board of education’s provision of housing on school premises for its night watchperson was governmental because the board’s purpose was “not to raise revenue or to participate in the local housing market”
How later courts described this case
- holding that a board of education’s provision of housing on school premises for its night watchperson was governmental because the board’s purpose was “not to raise revenue or to participate in the local housing market”
- noting that the board’s purpose in providing housing for night watchperson on school grounds was not a proprietary function because the board’s purpose was not to raise revenue or participate in the local housing market
- holding that an order denying summary judgment to a party asserting immunity is appealable
- concluding “the Board’s provision of housing for its night watchperson was a government act in direct furtherance of its education purpose”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
VENTERS, J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The residence provided by the Board of Education for a maintenance employee is not connected to the governmental function of educating children. The majority relies upon previous decisions of this Court wherein the activity in question was essential to the core governmental function of public education. In Withers, we noted that the University of Kentucky Medical Center’s essential mission was to teach medical students. In Yanero, we recognized the educational purpose of an interscholastic athletics program. In Autry, we recognized that dormitory housing for students was an essential part of Western Kentucky University’s duty to educate college students. Maintaining the personal, private house for the use of the school maintenance worker and her social guests has nothing to do with the school district’s educational mission. The keeping of that house is a purely proprietary function, and the alleged failure to maintain that property in a safe condition should not be cloaked with governmental immunity.