Harry Stoller and Co. v. City of Lowell
587 N.E.2d 780 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The discretionary function exception to governmental tort liability does not shield a municipality from liability for negligence that occurs at the operational level; immunity applies only to discretionary conduct that involves policy making or planning decisions.
Facts:
- A fire started on the sixth floor of a building owned by Harry Stoller & Co. in Lowell.
- The building, and two others that ultimately burned, were equipped with sprinkler systems that had been tested and found to be working satisfactorily two days prior to the fire.
- During the early stages of the fire, a fire department pumper was initially attached to the sprinkler system but was disconnected shortly thereafter.
- The fire department's hoses and the building's sprinkler system drew from the same water source, and the use of the hoses reduced the water pressure available to the sprinklers.
- Accepted firefighting practice for a fire high in a building of this type required the use of the building's sprinkler system.
- The fire department did not maintain adequate water pressure for the sprinkler system to operate properly on the sixth floor, and the fire eventually destroyed five buildings and their contents.
Procedural Posture:
- Harry Stoller & Co. sued the city of Lowell in a Massachusetts trial court for negligence.
- A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $850,000.
- Pursuant to a statutory cap, the trial judge entered a judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $100,000.
- The city of Lowell filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), arguing it was immune from suit under the discretionary function exception.
- The trial judge granted the city's motion for JNOV and entered judgment in its favor.
- The plaintiff, Harry Stoller & Co., appealed the entry of the JNOV to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the discretionary function exception of the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act shield a city from liability for the alleged negligence of its firefighters in choosing a specific operational method to combat a fire, such as not using a building's sprinkler system?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilkins, J.
No. The discretionary function exception does not shield the city from liability because the firefighters' actions were operational decisions, not policy or planning judgments. The court distinguished between high-level policy decisions, such as the allocation of resources or the number of fire stations, and the on-the-ground, operational conduct of carrying out those policies. The choice of whether to use hoses versus a building's sprinkler system is an operational decision concerning the implementation of firefighting services. While the firefighters had discretion in how to fight the fire, that discretion was not grounded in public policy considerations. Therefore, their conduct does not fall within the narrow scope of the discretionary function exception, and the city can be held liable for their negligence.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of the discretionary function exception under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act. It reinforces the critical distinction between immune high-level policy/planning and non-immune operational implementation. The decision prevents the exception from swallowing the rule of governmental liability, ensuring that citizens can seek redress for negligence in the day-to-day execution of government services. For future cases, this precedent means that simply having discretion is not enough for immunity; the discretionary act must be rooted in social, economic, or political policy considerations.
Unlock the full brief for Harry Stoller and Co. v. City of Lowell