City of Beech Grove v. Cathy J. Beloat
2016 Ind. LEXIS 239
| Ind. | 2016Background
- Cathy Beloat tripped in a hole on Main Street in Beech Grove, broke her leg, and sued the City for negligent street maintenance.
- The City moved for summary judgment claiming discretionary-function immunity under the Indiana Tort Claims Act (ITCA) and designated the Mayor’s affidavit plus City Council and Board of Works minutes about a planned Main Street reconstruction project.
- Trial court denied summary judgment; the Court of Appeals reversed in a split decision granting immunity; this Court granted transfer and vacated the Court of Appeals opinion.
- The sole issue on review was whether the City proved the omission was a discretionary, policy-level decision involving conscious balancing of risks and benefits (Peavler planning/operational test).
- The Mayor’s affidavit was conclusory and could not substitute for official board action; the official minutes showed funding and procedural steps but lacked explicit evidence of cost-benefit weighing, prioritization, or a decision to defer routine repairs in favor of reconstruction.
- Under Indiana’s summary-judgment rule, all reasonable inferences favor the nonmoving plaintiff; the Court held the City failed to meet its burden to show discretionary-function immunity on the designated record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City is entitled to discretionary-function immunity under the ITCA | Beloat: City has not shown an official policy decision involving conscious balancing; absence of minutes showing prioritization or cost-benefit analysis | City: Reconstruction of Main Street was a policy decision to avoid piecemeal repairs and thus is discretionary and immune | Held: City failed to show the required conscious balancing; denial of summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether a mayoral affidavit can establish an official policy decision | Beloat: Single-member statements cannot substitute for board action | City: Mayor’s affidavit shows City chose reconstruction over repairs | Held: Mayor’s affidavit alone is insufficient to prove board-level policy action |
| Whether meeting minutes showing funding and procedural steps are enough to prove discretionary decision-making | Beloat: Minutes do not show the necessary weighing of alternatives or delegation of policymaking authority | City: Minutes and approvals of financing reflect systematic decision-making and planning | Held: Minutes showed funding steps but not the substantive cost-benefit or prioritization analysis required to prove discretionary action |
| Proper application of summary-judgment standard in immunity disputes | Beloat: All inferences must favor the non-movant; close cases should proceed to trial | City: Record supports inference of planning-stage reconstruction and thus immunity | Held: Summary-judgment standard requires construing inferences for Beloat; City did not meet its burden on summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Peavler v. Board of Com’rs of Monroe County, 528 N.E.2d 40 (Ind. 1988) (adopts planning/operational test and requires "conscious balancing" for discretionary-function immunity)
- Mangold ex rel. Mangold v. Indiana Dep’t of Natural Resources, 756 N.E.2d 970 (Ind. 2001) (summary-judgment standard: facts and inferences construed for nonmoving party)
- Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC v. National Trust Ins. Co., 3 N.E.3d 1 (Ind. 2014) (discusses scope of governmental immunity under ITCA)
- Lee v. State, 682 N.E.2d 576 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (evidence of multi-phase planning and approvals can show conscious balancing)
- City of Indianapolis v. Duffitt, 929 N.E.2d 231 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (city demonstrated discretionary policy via prioritization and cost-benefit procedures)