Heaney v. New Castle County
672 A.2d 11, 1995 Del. LEXIS 445, 1995 WL 788115 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Local governmental entities in Delaware are broadly immune from tort claims unless a specific statutory exception applies and the claim does not result from a discretionary function. Additionally, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against local governments for constitutional due process violations based on omissions or resource allocation decisions are not cognizable without allegations of a deliberate affirmative act by the government or custody over the injured party.
Facts:
- On July 16, 1990, Anthony Heaney was killed when a tree fell on his parked car in Rockford Park.
- Rockford Park is owned by the City of Wilmington and leased to New Castle County until 2009.
- A New Castle County Forestry Department employee worked in the park area two weeks prior to the accident and noted dead wood but did not file a report, as it was not considered a hazard.
- The County forestry employee had no recollection of inspecting the particular tree that fell.
- Another County employee testified that personnel reductions prevented regular tree inspections and that the County had reduced outside educational courses for its forestry employees.
Procedural Posture:
- Susan Heaney and her daughters (plaintiffs-below) sued New Castle County and the City of Wilmington in Superior Court (trial court) for tort claims and civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for the County and City of Wilmington on the state law claims on July 8, 1993.
- The Superior Court dismissed the federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 10, 1995, after the plaintiffs had conducted discovery.
- Susan Heaney and her daughters (appellants) appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of New Castle County to the Delaware Supreme Court.
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 New Castle County's statutory governmental immunity bar tort claims arising from the death of Anthony Heaney, and have the plaintiffs stated a valid claim against the County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of substantive due process?
Opinions:
Majority - Veasey, Chief Justice
Yes, New Castle County's statutory governmental immunity bars the state law tort claims because the alleged omissions do not fall under a specific exception and involve discretionary functions. No, the plaintiffs have not stated a valid claim against the County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because a constitutional due process violation for omissions requires an 'arbitrary, or conscience-shocking' act and Mr. Heaney was not in the County's custody. The court held that the state law claims were properly dismissed for failure to state a claim, as the County was entitled to immunity for the activities alleged in the complaint. Delaware's Local Government Tort Claims Act (10 Del.C. § 4010 et seq.) establishes broad immunity for local government entities, subject only to specific, narrowly construed exceptions, and further limits liability for claims resulting from discretionary functions or duties. The plaintiffs' reliance on a general enabling statute for park districts (9 Del.C. § 770) was deemed insufficient to waive immunity, as such statutes do not impose the specific and express statutory duties required to overcome immunity, as established in Walls v. Rees and Fiat Motors. The court rejected arguments that park maintenance lacked immunity, that purchasing insurance waived immunity, or that the State's immunity statute (18 Del.C. § 6511) applied to local governments. Regarding the federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the court applied the two-question framework from Collins v. City of Harker Heights: (1) whether harm was caused by a constitutional violation, and (2) whether the city is responsible. For an omission to constitute a constitutional violation when the person is not in state custody, the act or omission must be 'arbitrary, or conscience-shocking.' Citing DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Soc. Svcs., the court affirmed that the Due Process Clause limits the State's power to act but does not impose an affirmative obligation to ensure safety. Resource allocation decisions, such as personnel and training for park maintenance, are policy choices for elected representatives, not federal judges. Since the plaintiffs alleged deliberate omissions rather than affirmative acts, and Mr. Heaney was not in the County's custody, they failed to state a claim, aligning with Collins and Searles v. SEPTA.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the broad scope of governmental immunity for local entities in Delaware, making it challenging for plaintiffs to sue for negligence based on omissions unless a highly specific statutory exception applies to a non-discretionary act. It also clarifies that federal civil rights claims under § 1983, based on a local government's failure to act (omission), face a high bar. Such claims require an 'arbitrary or conscience-shocking' government action and generally do not succeed if the injured party was not in the government's custody, preventing many ordinary tort claims from being elevated to constitutional violations. The decision underscores the judiciary's deference to legislative grants of immunity and municipal resource allocation choices.
