Robin McDonald v. City of Portland, 239 A.3d 662

On February 17, 2017, Robert Pelletier slipped on ice and fell about 6–8 feet from the Portland Police Department (PPD) lobby onto a brick‑paved plaza that extends from the building entrance to Middle Street; part of the building overhangs the plaza.
The space beneath the plaza is part of the PPD building and is used for a holding pen and staff parking; the plaza provides pedestrian access to the building, a parking garage, and Middle Street.
Pelletier and his wife sued the City for negligence and loss of consortium; the City moved for summary judgment asserting MTCA immunity (Maine Tort Claims Act).
The Superior Court denied the City’s motion, citing alleged material factual disputes about whether the fall occurred on an appurtenance to a public building (an exception to immunity).
The City appealed; the Maine Supreme Judicial Court considered whether the plaza is an appurtenance (fixture) to the public building and thus falls within the MTCA public‑building exception to immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is denial of immunity summary judgment immediately reviewable?	Appellees did not dispute material facts; legal issue ripe for review.	City argued entitlement to immediate review of immunity denial.	Immediately reviewable because facts material to legal question are undisputed.
Is the plaza an appurtenance/public building under MTCA §8104‑A(2)?	Plaza is annexed, adapted, and intended to be permanent — a fixture/appurtenance.	Plaza is not an appurtenance; at most an external area.	Plaza meets the three‑part fixture test and is an appurtenance to the public building.
Does the plaza qualify as a "parking area" or "sidewalk" (immune under §8104‑A(4))?	The specific area where Pelletier fell was not used or permitted for parking and is not a sidewalk along a street.	Plaza functions as a parking area/sidewalk, so the parking/sidewalk exclusion bars the exception.	Not a parking area or sidewalk in the plain meaning as to the fall location; treating it otherwise would produce an absurd result.
Does failure to treat ice implicate "maintenance" (so exception applies) or a nonmaintenance duty?	Failure to treat ice is negligent maintenance of the plaza.	Claims concern failure to treat walkway ice (not building maintenance), so exception inapplicable.	Removing/treating ice falls within "maintenance," so the public‑building exception can apply.

Rodriguez v. Town of Moose River, 922 A.2d 484 (Me. 2007) (immunity appeals reviewable when facts material to legal issue are undisputed)
J.R.M., Inc. v. City of Portland, 669 A.2d 159 (Me. 1995) (immunity is immunity from suit; immediate review appropriate)
Tolliver v. Dep’t of Transp., 948 A.2d 1223 (Me. 2008) (availability of MTCA immunity is a legal question absent disputed material facts)
Searle v. Town of Bucksport, 3 A.3d 390 (Me. 2010) (use fixture test — annexation, adaptation, intent — to determine appurtenance)
Sanford v. Town of Shapleigh, 850 A.2d 325 (Me. 2004) (an appurtenance is something that belongs to or is attached to a public building; personal property excluded)
Donovan v. City of Portland, 850 A.2d 319 (Me. 2004) (external stairs can be appurtenances to a public building)
Kitchen v. City of Calais, 666 A.2d 77 (Me. 1995) (distinguishing parking areas from public‑building appurtenances)
ABT & A Co. v. State, 644 A.2d 460 (Me. 1994) (public‑building exception inapplicable when claim concerns supervision rather than building operation/maintenance)
Brown v. Crown Equip. Corp., 960 A.2d 1188 (Me. 2008) (loss of consortium claims arise from same negligent act and follow same immunity rules)