Gold Ex Rel. Gold v. Mayor of Baltimore

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an action at law, brought by the plaintiff, an infant, by his father and next friend, ag'ainst the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, a municipal corporation, in the Baltimore City Court to recover damages for certain injuries sustained by tbe infant plaintiff while a pupil of one of the ³³⁶ public schools in the Oity of Baltimore. The injuries were caused by the falling of a door of one of the public school buildings of the defendant corporation, and, it is alleged, were due. to the negligence of the defendant in permitting an unsafe condition to exist in the doorway in the school building. The declaration, in substance, states that the Mayor and Oity Council of Baltimore is a municipal corporation, and is charged with the duty of providing a public school system for the education of children, residents of Baltimore Oity, and the necessary buildings and grounds for the proper education of such children; that the defendant now is in ownership and possession of a lot of ground and improvements in Baltimore Oity situated at the northwest corner of Greene and Fayette Streets, and on which lot of ground was located, at the time of the grievance hereinafter complained of, a large brick building used and operated by the defendant through its agents and teachers as a school for educational purposes; that on or about the 28th day of January, 1920, while the infant plaintiff, who was and had been for some time previous to this date a pupil at the school, was passing-through a double doorway of the school building, facing Greene Street in the school building, using due care and cau ■ tion, one of the doors of the double doorway, through and by the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, its agents, and servants, broke from its fastenings and fell upon and violently struck the infant plaintiff, throwing him to the floor of the building, seriously and permanently injuring and breaking one of his legs, and otherwise seriously and permanently injuring other parts of his body and shocking his system.

The declaration then charges that the injuries to the plaintiff were directly caused by the carelessness and negligence of the defendant, its agents and employees and without negligence or want of care on the part of the infant plaintiff dii’ectly thereunto contributing. ³³⁷ A demurrer was filed to this declaration by the defendant denying its liability in damages, and the demurrer was sustained by the court below. From a judgment on the demurrer in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff has taken this appeal. The facts of the case are admitted by the demurrer, and the single question presented on the record is the liability vel non of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, a municipal corporation, in an action of tort for negligence in connection with the school buildings used by it for educational purposes. While the cases and text writers are not in accord upon the general proposition here presented, the weight of authority is to the effect that, when a municipal corporation is charged by law with the duty of erecting and maintaining public schools for the education of the children of the municipality, it performs a public or governmental duty and function, and in the absence of statute is exempt from corporate liability for torts in connection with the maintenance and repairing of school buildings.

In Section 2675, Vol. 6 of McQuillan on Municipal Corporations, it is said: “A municipality is not liable for the negligence or other wrongful act of school officers, since education is a governmental function. Likewise, for the same reason it is not liable for injuries arising in connection with its ownership of school buildings or grounds. A fortiori, where the care and control of school property is given by statute to a board of education having capacity to sue and be sued, a municipal corporation will not be liable for injuries resulting from the negligence of the board in maintaining school property or for nuisances thereon. So it has even been held that where school buildings are erected by the board of education, with the concurrence of the city council, the city is not liable to one injured in the construction of a school building, through the negligence of the board of education.” ³³⁸ In Shearman and Redfield on Negligence, Section 267, it is said: “The duty of providing means of education, at the public expense, by building and maintaining school houses, etc., is purely a public duty, in the discharge of which the local body, as the