Torts
Fitzgerald v. State of Missouri, No. 22-556, Mo. Sup. Ct. 2023
Study notes for Fitzgerald v. State of Missouri: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
The State of Missouri can be held liable for negligence when a state employee's ministerial acts fall within statutory exceptions to sovereign immunity.
In this case, the Missouri Supreme Court clarified the boundaries of sovereign immunity in tort claims against the state. Professor emphasis will likely focus on the significance of distinguishing between discretionary and ministerial acts, as the court's decision hinged on the latter. The ruling provides a precedent for future negligence claims against state employees, especially those performing specific, mandatory tasks, and emphasizes the state's liability where its employees fail to fulfill their duties resulting in harm to individuals.
SMILE - Sovereign Missouri Immunity Limited Exceptions.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Hoffman v. State of Missouri | Hoffman involved discretionary acts where the state was held immune from liability, unlike Fitzgerald's ministerial acts. |
| Doe v. State of Missouri | Doe addressed failure to protect individuals through discretionary policy decisions, while Fitzgerald focused on specific actions leading to direct harm. |
Establishing liability encourages state employees to perform their duties diligently, promoting public safety.
Imposing liability on the state may discourage the allocation of resources for public safety inspections, as fear of litigation could lead to overly cautious behavior.
Exam questions may focus on the application of the doctrine of sovereign immunity and how it interacts with negligence claims, particularly in states with statutes outlining exceptions to immunity.