The state cannot be held liable for injuries sustained in a parking lot that is regularly used by people accessing a public building, the Maine Supreme Court has ruled.
On March 15, in Klein v. University of Maine System, the court ruled against the plaintiff, Karen Klein, who was injured when she fell on untreated ice in a parking lot at the university’s Orono campus.
The state’s high court agreed with the Superior Court in granting the University of Maine summary judgment and relieving it of liability because the parking lot where the injuries occurred is not an “appurtenance” or fixture to a public building, a condition that might qualify the incident for an exception to the state’s general grant of immunity for governmental entities,
The court stressed that to deem a parking area appurtenant to a public building merely because someone parks her vehicle in it to gain access to another public building would constitute “an impermissible extension of the statutory exceptions to governmental immunity.”
In January 2019, Klein drove her vehicle to the Orono campus to conduct business at Fogler Library. Klein was instructed by the university to use a parking lot that is contiguous to nearby Holmes Hall and across the road from the library. The parking lot is used primarily by faculty and staff working at Holmes Hall and by faculty, staff, and visitors using Fogler Library.
After her fall, Klein filed a complaint in the Superior Court alleging that the university was negligent in its maintenance and operation of the parking lot. The university filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming immunity from Klein’s suit under the Maine Tort Claims Act (MTCA). Klein opposed the motion, arguing that the parking lot fell within the “public building exception” to the MTCA’s otherwise comprehensive grant of immunity.
On February 5, 2021, the court granted the university’s summary judgment motion on the grounds that the parking lot was not an appurtenance as that term has been defined and therefore that no exception to governmental immunity applied.
The MTCA expressly provides that, as a general rule, governmental entities are immune from suit on any and all tort claims seeking recovery of damages. However, a public building exception to this immunity provides that a “governmental entity is liable for its negligent acts or omissions in the construction, operation or maintenance of any public building or the appurtenances to any public building.”
The MTCA does not define the term “appurtenance,” and the state courts have adopted a restrictive definition of the term.
The plaintiff cited a 2020 case (McDonald v. City of Portland), involving a brick plaza leading to the entrance to the Portland Police Department building. In this case the court found a public building exception after applying a three-part definition. The court concluded, first, that the plaza was “annexed to the Department building because it serve[d] as the roof to the portion of the building underneath it and [could not] be freely moved or relocated.” Second, the court said that the plaza was “adapted to the unique needs of the Department building” because “the building’s lobby would be wholly inaccessible without [it].” Third, the court said that the “annexation and essential nature of the plaza” displayed the city’s intent to make it “an irremovable part of the Department building.”
“The fact that the plaza was physically annexed to—formed the roof of a portion of—the Portland Police Department headquarters building was critical to the outcome in McDonald,” the court said of its previous analysis in McDonald.
In analyzing Klein’s case, the high court decided that the parking lot is quite different from the brick plaza at the police building and the parking lot does not qualify as an appurtenance or fixture. Although the parking lot shares a common border with Holmes Hall, the court said the parking lot is “not an object or thing that is ‘physically annexed to’ Holmes Hall or Fogler Library. The parking lot is not attached to either Holmes Hall or Fogler Library “nor is it incorporated into these public buildings in any way,” the court said, adding that since the parking lot is not annexed to either university building, it cannot be “an irremovable part” of either building. Thus, the court found no evidence to support two of the three necessary factors in McDonald.
The court continued that even if the parking lot were annexed to one of the public buildings, it would not satisfy the remaining factor necessary to the definition of a fixture. The parking lot is not “adapted to the realty” because it is not unique or integral to Holmes Hall or Fogler Library in any way.
“Many buildings border parking areas that facilitate the arrival and departure of visitors to the building, and there is no factual basis upon which to determine that this parking lot serves any special purpose—it does not serve as an entryway to any building, and it has no designated purpose other than parking,” the court wrote.
Because the parking lot is not an appurtenance, Klein’s injury is one for which the university is afforded governmental immunity from suit, according to the 6-1 opinion written by Justice Ellen Gorman.
