Phelps v. City of Kansas City
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 737
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Christopher Dill, age 10, drowned after entering a flooded city drainage ditch near his school on May 30, 2007.
- Phelps and Dill sued the City of Kansas City and the School District for negligent maintenance/operation of drainage systems and dangerous condition claims.
- City moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing no waiver of sovereign immunity because the District owned the ditch.
- Trial court granted the motion; on appeal this court reversed and remanded, holding City not entitled to sovereign immunity.
- On remand, Phelps filed a Third Amended Petition removing the District as a defendant; City again moved to dismiss based on sovereign immunity and the court again granted the motion.
- This appeal asks whether the petition states a viable claim under sovereign immunity waivers, particularly for proprietary function and dangerous condition theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the petition plead a viable waiver under 537.600.1(2) for a dangerous condition of the City’s property? | Phelps pleads a dangerous condition caused by the City’s drainage system. | City argues ownership/control issues defeat the waiver. | Yes, the petition states a dangerous-condition claim. |
| Does the petition plead a proprietary-function waiver to defeat sovereign immunity? | City-operating the drainage system as a proprietary function supports waiver. | Property ownership controls immunity analysis; no waiver if not proprietary function. | Yes, the petition pleads a proprietary-function basis for waiver. |
| Is ownership of the property a prerequisite for the 537.600.1(2) waiver? | Thomas allows broader “public entity’s property” concept beyond ownership. | Traditionally ownership is needed to trigger waiver. | No; possession/control rising to ownership level suffices. |
| Is resolution of prescriptive easement necessary to decide immunity here? | Prescriptive easement allegations support control/possession. | Not necessary to resolve immunity issue at this stage. | Not necessary to resolve for this appeal; petition pled sufficient control. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kraus v. Hy-Vee, Inc., 147 S.W.3d 907 (Mo.App. W.D. 2004) (sets out general sovereign immunity framework under §537.600)
- Brooks v. City of Sugar Creek, 340 S.W.3d 201 (Mo.App. W.D. 2011) (distinguishes governmental vs. proprietary functions)
- Thomas v. City of Kansas City, 92 S.W.3d 92 (Mo.App. W.D. 2002) (proprietary-function waiver for city drainage; ownership not required)
- St. Joseph Light & Power Co. v. Kaw Valley Tunneling, Inc., 589 S.W.2d 260 (Mo. banc 1979) (sewer construction treated as proprietary function)
- James v. Farrington, 844 S.W.2d 517 (Mo.App. W.D. 1992) (broad/inclusive definition of public entity’s property for waiver)
- State ex rel. Div. of Motor Carrier and R.R. Safety v. Russell, 91 S.W.3d 612 (Mo.banc 2002) (exclusive control/possession threshold for sovereign property)
- Hensley v. Jackson County, 227 S.W.3d 491 (Mo.banc 2007) (sets four elements for §537.600.1(2) waiver)
- Summitt by Boyd v. Roberts, 903 S.W.2d 631 (Mo.App. W.D. 1995) (early guidance on sovereign immunity parameters)
- Adams v. One Park Place Investors, LLC, 315 S.W.3d 742 (Mo.App. W.D. 2010) (pleading standards for survival on motion to dismiss)