# James R. Spencer v. General Hospital of the District of Columbia

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · November 10, 1969 · 425 F.2d 479

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9455566

## Case

- **Full name:** James R. SPENCER, Appellant, v. GENERAL HOSPITAL OF the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** November 10, 1969
- **Citations:** 425 F.2d 479; 138 U.S. App. D.C. 48; 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10117
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Prettyman
- **Judges:** Bazelon, Prettyman, Danaher, Wright, McGowan, Tamm, Leventhal, Robinson, Robb
- **Cited by:** 69 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9455566

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that “municipal immunity in tort . . . deriv[es] from a purpose not to jeopardize ‘the quality and efficiency of government itself’ by exposing the exercise of discretion in the formulation of governmental policy to . . . tort liability” (citation omitted)
- explaining that this is why the courts had the power to discard the governmental-proprietary test of sovereign immunity
- discussing history of immunity, abandoning "governmental-proprietary" test for defining immunity, and adopting "discretionary function" test for defining immunity

## Opinion text

PRETTYMAN, Senior Circuit Judge
(concurring):
I oppose with all possible emphasis the suggestion that the court attempt to eliminate sovereign immunity from among the defenses available to the Government in tort cases in this jurisdiction. I think that to be a matter of legislative policy rather than a judicial question. But the immunity of the local municipal corporation from liability for torts committed by it or its agents in the course of the performance of duties imposed by statute is quite a different thing. It does not involve sovereignty in the classic sense; it is a problem concerning municipal functions and the liability therefor. I see no reason why a court should not construe and apply the latter.
I am authorized to say that Senior Circuit Judge DANAHER concurs in the foregoing statement.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9455566. Public record. Not legal advice.