Page:Parish v. Pitts, 244 Ark. 1239 (1968).pdf/2

1240 the common law; so too is the power to overrule a line of decisions, even those under which property rights were acquired.
 * 1) C.—Where a former rule, established by precedent, no longer gives a just result and more good than harm will result from changing it, it will be overruled.
 * 2) M—Rule of law established by precedent granting to municipalities immunity from liability for damages negligently inflicted on others while acting in a governmental capacity is overruled.
 * 3) M.—Rule of non-immunity of municipality for tort liability would apply only to present action and actions arising out of occurrences after date opinion announcing the rule becomes final.
 * 4) M.—Rule of non-immunity of municipality for torts imposes liability only for the imperfect, negligent, unskillful execution of a thing ordained to be done.
 * 5) M.—No tort action will lie against a municipality for those acts involving judgment and discretion which are judicial and legislative, or quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative in nature, since the exercise of discretion carries with it the right to be wrong, and it is only for ordinary torts committed in the execution of the activities decided upon that a tort action will lie; not for the decision itself.
 * 6) C—In determining non-immunity of municipalities for tort liability, consideration was not given to liability of any other governmental unit or political subdivision.

Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Third Division, Joe Rhodes, Judge; reversed.

Alonzo D. Camp, for appellants.

Joseph C. Kemp, City Attorney; John B. Plegge, Asst. City Attorney, for appellees.

Warner, Warner, Ragon & Smith; Henry Woods and Dale Price; Terral, Rawliings, Matthews & Purtle; Spitzberg, Bonner, Mitchell & Hays; F. N. Burke Jr., Roscopf & Raff, David Solomon, John L. Anderson, Oscar Fendler, Rieves & Rieves; Frierson, Walker &