substituted opinion on denial of rehearing
How later courts described this case
- substituted opinion on denial of rehearing
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Bly v. Young, 293 Ark. 36 (1987)
Our holding in Carter v. Bush, supra, is applicable here, whereas the Beaulieu case is distinguishable on the basis she asserts.
The opinion
Darrell Hickman, Justice, concurring upon rehearing. Essentially, I agree with the substituted opinion which I conclude holds a state employee that has liability insurance may be sued, that is, named a party defendant, but may not be held personally liable for negligent acts that occur in the course of his employment.
This is not consistent with our decision in Grimmett v. Digby, 267 Ark. 192 , 589 S.W.2d 579 (1979), which held a state employee could be found liable personally for negligent acts which violate a duty imposed on him in common with all other people.
After our decision in Grimmett, the General Assembly in 1981 passed Act 586 which contains a section that unequivocally is contrary to Grimmett. It reads: “Officers and employees of the State of Arkansas are immune from civil liability for acts or omissions, other than malicious acts or omissions, occurring within the course and scope of their employment.” § 13-1420. The result we have reached in this case is consistent with the provisions of Act 586 and Act 543 of 1977.