Opinion

Withers v. University of Kentucky

  • 939 S.W.2d 340
  • 1997 Ky. LEXIS 29
  • 1997 WL 86226
Court
Kentucky Supreme Court
Filed
Feb 27, 1997
Status
Published
Author
Stephens
On the bench
Cooper, Johnstone, Lambert, Stephens, Wintersheimer, Graves, Stumbo
Cited by
110 cases
Authority
More cited than 10.8%

explaining that a university medical center performed the same functions as a private hospital but retained governmental immunity due to its teaching mission

How later courts described this case

  • explaining that a university medical center performed the same functions as a private hospital but retained governmental immunity due to its teaching mission
  • “[w]e will find waiver only where stated ‘by the most express language or by such overwhelming implications from the text as [will] leave no room for any other reasonable construction.”
  • “If immunity exists, it is not lost or diminished or affected in any manner by the purchase of liability insurance or the establishment of an indemnity fund . . . directed or authorized by statute.”
  • As to ‘‘whether the University of Kentucky is entitled to immunity'from cláims óf medical riegligence at its medical center [the Supreme Court-said] we have no reluctance to answer in the affirmative.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

STEPHENS, Chief Justice,

concurring.

While I concur with the majority, I would go further and revisit the two-pronged test we adopted in Kentucky Center for the Arts v. Berns, Ky., 801 S.W.2d 327 (1991), as I believe it went too far and usurped a function squarely within the discretion of the legislature. Section 231 of Kentucky’s Constitution specifically states: “The General Assembly may, by law, direct in what manner and in what courts suits may be brought against the Commonwealth.” By the very language of this section, sovereign immunity is retained for the Commonwealth until the General Assembly, by statute, expressly waives it.

*347 However, the test annunciated by this Court in Bems, supra, potentially affords operations established, funded, and owned by the Commonwealth no protection of sovereign immunity. This surely does not comport with the purpose the original drafters of our constitution had in mind. Thus, I would leave the determination of what entities should be afforded sovereign immunity where it properly belongs, with the General Assembly.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.