39 N.E.3d 691
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- On June 19, 2012, Beloat tripped in a hole at the Main Street & 10th Street crosswalk in Beech Grove, suffering fractures in her left tibia and fibula. A pickup truck partially blocked the crosswalk, forcing her to step around it into the hole.
- Beloat sued the City for negligence on February 11, 2013.
- The City moved for summary judgment asserting (1) lack of proximate cause, (2) discretionary-function immunity under the Indiana Tort Claims Act (ITCA) § 34-13-3-3(7), and (3) contributory negligence.
- The trial court denied summary judgment; the City obtained interlocutory appellate review of the denial.
- Designated evidence showed the City was in the planning phase of a full reconstruction of Main Street and had pending bond votes to fund the project; the City argued it chose reconstruction over piecemeal repairs.
- The majority concluded the decision to postpone piecemeal repairs in favor of a planned reconstruction was a policy-level, planning activity protected by discretionary-function immunity; the dissent argued the record did not show a conscious balancing to forgo ordinary repairs like pothole-filling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City is immune under ITCA § 34-13-3-3(7) for conduct that led to Beloat’s fall | Beloat: claim is ordinary negligence/operational conduct not protected by discretionary immunity; no evidence of a policy-level decision to forgo routine repairs | City: was in planning phase of a full street reconstruction and made a policy decision to reconstruct Main Street rather than perform piecemeal repairs, so the omission is a planning activity entitled to immunity | Court held City entitled to discretionary-function immunity; reversed trial court and directed entry of summary judgment for City |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearler v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Monroe County, 528 N.E.2d 40 (Ind. 1988) (adopts planning/operational test and holds immunity covers policy-level decisions made by weighing risks/benefits)
- M.S.D. of Martinsville v. Jackson, 9 N.E.3d 230 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (summarizes ITCA immunity burdens and application of planning/operational test)
- Lee v. State, 682 N.E.2d 576 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (state immune where improvement was in planning phase; policy decision shielded from review)
- City of Indianapolis v. Duffitt, 929 N.E.2d 231 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (city immune where sidewalk-prioritization involved budgetary cost-benefit decisions and allocation of scarce funds)
- Scott v. City of Seymour, 659 N.E.2d 585 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (no immunity where decision was informal or made by an individual outside public policy-making process)
- Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC v. Natl. Trust Ins. Co., 3 N.E.3d 1 (Ind. 2014) (refuses immunity where city failed to make deliberate policy decision and conduct was assessable under tort standards)