International Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration - Vol. 3

By Jay M. Shafritz | Go to book overview

Q

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. An exemption from being sued, subject to specific restrictions. It is contrasted to absolute immunity, which is unconditional and without exception (see absolute immunity; sovereign immunity; and official immunity). It must be noted that the conditions applied under the qualified immunity doctrine may be more or less extensive. Some qualified immunity privileges still provide far-reaching protection. There is now a trend toward curtailing immunity to increase accountability and provide remedies against abuses committed by government agencies and their officials. All types of immunity may be qualified in one way or another, whether applying to states, governments, or public officials, domestic or foreign.


Qualified Immunity of Domestic Origin

Under common law, government and state agencies enjoyed absolute immunity; state officials were as liable as any private citizen, but gradually they were given absolute immunity by statute and court decision. Absolute immunity, it was then believed, permitted expeditious and effective administration, sheltered from the threat of liability. The dark side of this doctrine was that the parties harmed by public officials were left without redress even when bureaucrats acted in bad faith and with malicious intent. As Kenneth Warren ( 1996) has observed, government agencies and public officials were thus placed above the law (p. 465). The danger of injustice increased as the influence of governmental institutions became more pervasive.

Eventually, limits began to be imposed on immunity privileges, although this process evolved slowly and unevenly. The Tucker Act of 1855 conferred jurisdiction on United States district courts to hear claims against the United States involving contracts. In 1882, the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Lee questioned the logic of the sovereign immunity doctrine: "Courts of justice are established, not only to decide upon controverted rights of the citizens as against each other, but also upon rights in controversy between them and the government" (106 U.S. 196). Qualified immunity would eventually permit it.

In 1946, Congress passed the Federal Tort Claims Act, allowing suits against the United States government, under certain circumstances, for tortious acts committed by its officials. This act forced the federal government to assume some responsibility for the damage caused by its agents; but it severely limited the tort action suits that could be initiated. The Supreme Court itself was restrictive in its interpretation of the act, making it even more difficult to win tort suits against the federal government. In 1976, Congress amended sections 702 and 703 of the Administrative Procedure Act, thus allowing the U.S. government to be sued for relief, other than money damages.

Reform proved easier at the state level, although another half century elapsed before it could happen on a large scale. Over the past 30 years, however, most states have, either by statute or court decision, eliminated or greatly restricted the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Statutes have been enacted providing for waivers of sovereign immunity: some fairly cautious and limited, as in Utah and California, others comprehensive, as in Washington and New York.

Even more extensive is the retreat from sovereign immunity in judicial practice during the same period. In Muskopf v. Corning Hospital District, a landmark case in this evolution, the California court held that "the rule of governmental immunity from tort liability . . . must be discarded as mistaken and unjust." Sovereign immunity in tort "is an anachronism, without rational basis, and has existed only by the force of inertia" (359 P. 2d 457, 458, 460, Cal. 1961). Increasing numbers of state courts have rejected, to varying extents, the doctrine of sovereign immunity from tort liability.

In 1978, the Supreme Court, in Monell v. Department of Social Services of New York, reversed its earlier stand and ruled that local governing bodies can be sued under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 when the action falls under certain categories (which it specified), if the governing bodies' policies deprive plaintiffs of their constitutional rights. In Owen v. City of Independence, Missouri ( 1980), the Supreme Court noted that

Section 1983 was intended not only to provide compensation to the victims of past abuses but to serve as a deterrent against future constitutional deprivations as well. . . . The knowledge that a municipality will be liable for all of its injurious conduct, whether committed in good faith or not, should create an incentive for officials who may harbor doubts about the lawfulness of their intended actions to err on the side of protecting citizens' constitutional rights. Furthermore, the threat that damages might be levied against the city may encourage those in policy-making positions to institute internal rules and programs designed to minimize the likelihood of unintentional infringements on constitutional rights (445 U.S. 651-652).

This was a clear enunciation of the profound merit of curbing sovereign immunity.

In the meantime, government officials, once totally liable under common law, had progressively been granted absolute immunity from tort action (see official immunity), and the vast expansion of officials immunity

-1875-

Notes for this page

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this book

This book has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this book

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this page

Cited page

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited page

Bookmark this page
International Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration - Vol. 3
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this book

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen
/ 1900

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.