Moore v. Wilmington Housing Authority

Majority - Chief Justice Veasey

Yes, a leased dwelling unit owned by a public housing authority is a "public building" under the Delaware Tort Claims Act, meaning the authority is not immune from suit for negligence claims arising from its operation or maintenance. Chief Justice Veasey, writing for the majority, first examined the legislative intent of the Delaware Tort Claims Act (10 Del.C. § 4010 et seq.). The Act was intended to both reestablish broad sovereign immunity for governmental entities and provide relief for wronged private citizens, striking a balance between individual rights and societal interests. The Court found that the Superior Court's application of a "freedom-of-access" test, which required a building to be open to the general public, was flawed because it was inconsistent with this dual legislative objective and led to anomalous results, particularly by disregarding the community benefit of low-income housing. The Court then defined "public building" by parsing the terms separately. "Building" was construed according to its ordinary dictionary meaning, encompassing a dwelling unit (like an apartment) within a larger edifice. For "public," the Court emphasized the "public policy character" of the building, meaning it is operated and maintained in furtherance of a governmental objective, such as providing low-cost housing. Citing Green v. State Corrections Department (Mich.), the Court adopted a "benefit to the whole community" or "public purpose" approach. The legislative creation, funding, and grant of responsibility to a housing authority for providing low-cost housing serve a legitimate public purpose for the benefit of the community at large. Therefore, a building that is operated and maintained by a governmental entity for a public purpose and is open to those members of the public who use it for its intended purpose (e.g., tenants and their guests) qualifies as a "public building," even if general public access is limited. This interpretation aligns with the Act’s objectives and rejects the narrow "freedom-of-access" standard.