271 A.3d 777
Me.2022Background:
- On January 6, 2019, Karen Klein parked in a university parking lot contiguous to Holmes Hall after being instructed to use that lot to access Fogler Library across Moosehead Road.
- Klein crossed Moosehead Road to Fogler Library and, hours later, returned, slipped on untreated ice in the parking lot, and was injured.
- Klein sued the University of Maine System/University of Maine for negligent maintenance/operation of the parking lot; the University claimed immunity under the Maine Tort Claims Act (MTCA).
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for the University, holding the parking lot was not an "appurtenance" to a public building under 14 M.R.S. § 8104-A(2), so the MTCA immunity exception did not apply.
- Klein appealed; the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the summary judgment in a majority opinion applying the fixture-based test for "appurtenance." Justice Jabar dissented, urging a function-based test.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the parking lot is an "appurtenance" to a public building under § 8104-A(2) | The lot serves Holmes Hall and Fogler Library, facilitates access, and is effectively part of the buildings' operations, so it fits the public building exception | "Appurtenance" must be analyzed by the fixture test (physically annexed, adapted, intended to be irremovable); the lot is not annexed or adapted | Held: Not an appurtenance; MTCA immunity applies (summary judgment affirmed) |
| Whether McDonald v. City of Portland supports treating the lot as an appurtenance | McDonald showed paved outdoor areas contiguous to buildings can be appurtenances | McDonald simply applied the fixture test; it did not create a new function-based test | Held: McDonald applied the fixture test and is distinguishable (plaza formed part/roof of building) |
| Whether the court should adopt a function-based test for appurtenance | (Dissent) A function-based test—focusing on whether the thing is integral to the building’s purpose—better reflects statutory text and legislative intent | (Majority) Prior precedent rejects a function-based approach; exceptions to immunity must be narrowly construed | Held: Majority rejects function-based approach; dissent would adopt it |
| Whether undisputed facts raise a triable issue | The University’s stipulations about the lot’s function create a material factual dispute | Even accepting stipulated facts, the lot fails the fixture criteria as a matter of law | Held: No genuine issue of material fact on appurtenance under fixture test; legal question decided for defendant |
Key Cases Cited:
- McDonald v. City of Portland, 239 A.3d 662 (Me. 2020) (applied fixture test and held a paved plaza that formed the roof/entry to a building was an appurtenance)
- Searle v. Town of Bucksport, 3 A.3d 390 (Me. 2010) (adopted and articulated the fixture factors for determining appurtenance)
- Sanford v. Town of Shapleigh, 850 A.2d 325 (Me. 2004) (defined appurtenance and rejected a function-based test in favor of a restrictive, fixture-based approach)
- Donovan v. City of Portland, 850 A.2d 319 (Me. 2004) (recognized exterior building features such as lighting or stairs as building appurtenances)