Sussex County, Del. v. Morris
1992 Del. LEXIS 233, 610 A.2d 1354 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Delaware County and Municipal Tort Claims Act, a governmental entity is not immune from liability when its agent's actions are ministerial rather than discretionary, such as the selection and equipment of a transport vehicle, and when the injuries are a direct result of the ownership, maintenance, or use of an improperly equipped motor vehicle.
Facts:
- On July 16, 1984, E. Stanley Morris was released from the State Hospital after his fourteenth involuntary civil commitment, having been diagnosed with alcohol dependence, psychosis, schizophrenia, and paranoia, and had previously threatened to kill his estranged wife and himself.
- Less than 24 hours later, on July 17, 1984, Morris was again involuntarily committed for 72 hours and held at Milford Memorial Hospital pending transfer to the State Hospital.
- An employee at Milford Memorial Hospital contacted Frank Blake, Jr., one of several Sussex constables responsible for transporting mental patients, to complete Morris's transfer.
- Blake arrived at Milford Memorial Hospital driving his personal 1981 4-door Oldsmobile, accompanied by his brother and father-in-law.
- Blake handcuffed Morris's hands in front (at Morris's request so he could smoke) and shackled his legs; Morris then sat in the back seat with his seat belt fastened and the door locked.
- The back doors of Blake’s personal car had not been modified and, unlike a police car, the rear door locks and handles were fully operational from the inside.
- During the trip, Morris stated several times that he wished he were dead.
- While the car was moving at approximately forty miles per hour, Morris unfastened his seat belt, unlocked the car door, opened it, and jumped out.
- Morris was seriously injured, requiring multiple operations and spending over three months in the hospital, resulting in a 45% permanent impairment of one foot, a limp, and an inability to return to his former construction work.
Procedural Posture:
- E. Stanley Morris sued Sussex County, Delaware, Frank Blake, Jr., and the City of Milford in state trial court (Superior Court).
- Summary judgment was granted to the City of Milford.
- Frank Blake, Jr.'s motion for summary judgment was granted as to allegations of simple negligence but denied as to wantonness.
- Sussex County's motion for summary judgment was granted only as to its alleged failure to adequately train and equip Blake.
- The trial court denied Sussex County's motion for summary judgment on the issues of governmental immunity and agency.
- Sussex County again moved for summary judgment after the Delaware Supreme Court's decision in `Sadler v. New Castle County`, which the Superior Court denied.
- Before trial, Sussex County filed a motion in limine concerning the admissibility of certain medical expenses, which was denied by the trial court, leading to the admission of the unpaid portion of Morris's hospital bill into evidence (after a $9,870 deduction from a prior settlement).
- At the close of the trial, Sussex County moved for a directed verdict, claiming Blake was not its agent, on which the trial court reserved decision.
- The jury returned a general verdict against Sussex County in the amount of $100,000.
- Sussex County moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial (both based on the agency issue), and also sought a remittitur of $15,130 (the difference between the full PIP coverage and the amount Morris netted from settlement), all of which were denied by the trial 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 the County and Municipal Tort Claims Act grant governmental immunity to Sussex County for injuries sustained by a person in the custody of its constable, when the constable's acts of selecting and equipping a transport vehicle are deemed ministerial rather than discretionary, and is the county liable for the constable's negligence as its agent?
Opinions:
Majority - Moore, Justice
Yes, Sussex County is liable for Morris's injuries because Blake's acts of selecting and equipping the transport vehicle were ministerial, not discretionary, thus not granting immunity under the Act, and the jury's finding that Blake was an agent of Sussex County was supported by the evidence. The court found that the County and Municipal Tort Claims Act's general immunity is subject to specific exceptions, including for the "ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicle." While the Act grants immunity for "discretionary functions," this provision is interpreted narrowly. The court distinguished `Sadler v. New Castle County`, stating that `Sadler` involved equipment incidental to a discretionary judgment on `how` to rescue, whereas here, Morris's injuries were a direct result of `what` was used—a vehicle indisputably ill-equipped for transporting mentally ill passengers. The court adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts definition for "ministerial acts" as those involving "less in the way of personal decision or judgment or the matter for which judgment is required has little bearing of importance upon the validity of the act." Blake's selection and equipment of his personal car, which lacked safety modifications for patient transport, were ministerial acts distinct from his official authority to transport patients. Therefore, the motor vehicle exception applied because the improperly equipped vehicle itself was the instrument of harm. Furthermore, the court found ample evidence to support the jury's determination that Blake was acting as an agent of Sussex County, given the county's role in his appointment, duties, and oversight. Lastly, the trial court's failure to grant a remittitur for the full $25,000 PIP coverage was deemed erroneous but harmless, as the $15,130 difference would not have materially affected the $100,000 general verdict.
Dissenting - Horsey, Justice
No, Sussex County is immune from liability because Blake's actions were discretionary functions under the County and Municipal Tort Claims Act, and the plain meaning of "discretionary" should be given effect, even if the acts involved a motor vehicle. The dissent argued that the majority's interpretation unnecessarily confused the interaction between Section 4011(b) (discretionary immunity) and Section 4012 (exceptions to immunity), asserting that immunity for discretionary functions should apply "notwithstanding" any Section 4012 exception. Justice Horsey contended that the majority incorrectly "resuscitated the common law" by introducing the non-statutory term "ministerial" and defining Blake’s acts as such, contrary to the Act's intent to abrogate such distinctions. The undisputed record, according to the dissent, showed that Blake was given discretion in the "manner and method" of transporting and securing Morris, including the decision to handcuff him in front. These choices, such as allowing Morris to be handcuffed to smoke, were precisely the kind of choices that should be considered discretionary, granting immunity to the County. The dissent emphasized that the essence of discretion is choice and the right to be wrong, and that Blake's actions clearly fell within this definition.
Concurring - Yeasey, Chief Justice
Yes, Sussex County is liable because Blake's decisions were ministerial and not "discretionary functions" within the meaning of the Act, and the facts are distinguishable from `Sadler`. Chief Justice Yeasey concurred with the majority's result and holding that Blake's decisions—such as transporting Morris in his unequipped personal car and handcuffing him in front—were ministerial and thus not immune "discretionary functions." The concurrence agreed that the facts of this case were distinguishable from `Sadler v. New Castle County`, thereby avoiding the need to consider overruling `Sadler`. The opinion noted the legislative policy behind the Act was to reestablish sovereign immunity and curb litigation costs, while also allowing for specific exceptions, like the motor vehicle exception in Section 4012(1). While acknowledging the difficulty in defining "discretionary" and "ministerial" functions, the concurrence suggested that future cases might consider consulting the body of law under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), particularly the "policy or planning level" versus "operational level" distinction, even though FTCA jurisprudence is not always clear or consistent.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of the "discretionary function" exception to governmental immunity under the Delaware County and Municipal Tort Claims Act, narrowing its application. By distinguishing between high-level policy or planning decisions (discretionary) and operational, day-to-day tasks (ministerial), the court ensures that government entities remain accountable for negligence in carrying out routine duties, especially when inadequate equipment directly causes harm. The ruling emphasizes that the motor vehicle exception applies when the vehicle itself is the instrument of injury due to its unsuitability. This decision will likely influence future cases by requiring a more granular assessment of an agent's actions, focusing on the nature of the decision rather than merely the existence of choice, and may prompt governmental entities to review their operational protocols and equipment standards to mitigate liability risks.
