Title: W D CONSTRUCTION INC v BD OF

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 8 5 - 1 3 1 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1 9 8 5 W. D. CONSTRUCTION, I N C . , ROYAL VILLAGE, INC., W. E. DITEMAN a n d LANORA DITEMAN, VALLEY RANK OF BELGRADE, a M o n t a n a b a n k i n g corporation, MIKE N. STEINER, ELIZABETH M. STEINER, PATRICIA M. STEINER, MARK STEINER a n d MONTANA WILLIAMS DOUBLE DIAMOND CORPORATION, a M o n t a n a c o r p o r a t i o n , L I L L I A N E. WILLIAMS, i t s president, D e f e n d a n t s , P l a i n t i f f s , T h i r d P a r t y P l a i n t i f f s a n d A p p e l l a n t s , THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA, D e f e n d a n t , T h i r d P a r t y D e f e n d a n t and R e s p o n d e n t . APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n a n d for t h e C o u n t y of G a l l a t i n , T h e H o n o r a b l e B y r o n R o b b , Judge p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL OF RECORD: F o r A p p e l l a n t : N a s h , W e l l c o m e , F r o s t , G u e n t h e r & Z i m m e r ; P a g e W e l l c o m e , B o z e m a n , M o n t a n a (W.D. C o n t r u c t i o n , R o y a l V i l l a g e , W.E. D i t e m a n , L a n o r a D i t e m a n , V a l l e y B a n k of B e l g r a d e ) M c K i n l e y A n d e r s o n argued f o r M i k e S t e i n e r , E l i z a b e t h S t e i n e r , P a t r i c i a S t e i n e r & Mark S t e i n e r , B o z e m a n , M o n t a n a G o e t z , M a d d e n & D u n n ; W i l l i a m L . M a d d e n , B o z e m a n , M o n t a n a ( M o n t . P7il liams D o u b l e D i a m o n d C o r p . , L i l l i a n E. W i l l i a m s , P r e s i d e n t ) F o r R e s p o n d e n t : A. M i c h a e l S a l v a g n i , C o u n t y A t t o r n e y , B o z e m a n , M o n t a n a I , a n d o e , B r o w n , P l a n a l p , Komrners & Johnstone; C a l v i n B r a a k s m a a r g u e d , B o z e m a n , M o n t a n a Joseph Sabol, B o z e m a n , M o n t a n a Submitted: S e p t e m b e r 19, 1 9 8 5 D e c i d e d : O c t o b e r 3 1 , 1 9 8 5 F i l e d : oc I- 3 1 ./$I85 C l e r k Mr. Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. Plaintiff, Mark Steiner (Steiner) , brought a negligence action against Gallatin County (County) and the Board of County Commissioners of Gallatin County (Commissioners) for damages a llegedly arising when the Commissioners granted final approval of the plat of Royal Village Subdivision without requiring subdivision improvements or a bond guaran- teeing such improvements. The Gal-latin County District Court concluded that the County and Commissioners were immune from suit under S 2-9-111, MCA, and dismissed them from the case on the grounds Steiner had failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted. All other parties to the suit appeal. We affirm. The issue on appeal is: Are Gallatin County and the Commissioners immune from suit for negligence in the administration of state statutes or subdivision regulations in connection with the approval of the plat of Royal Village Subdivision in Gallatin County? Steiner's complaint alleged the following facts: That on the 26th day of February, 1975 . . . Commissioners adopted the regula- tions known as the "Gallatin County Subdivision Regulation1' . . . That said regulations were designed for the purpose of insuring that all improve- ments required by the Gallatin County Subdivision Regulation would be in place or necessary escrow deposits or bonds would be furnished before the developers of the subdivision would be able to file their subdivision plat and sell lots to the general pub1 ic; that said regulations were specifically intended for the pro- tections of the buyers of the subdivision lots in order to insure that the utili- ties would be in place, and that said buyers could use said lots for building purposes; . . . That . . . Cornmi.ssioners . . . have violated the . . . regulation . . . by granting final approval of the plat of Royal Village Subdivision . . . without requiring the subdivider, Royal Village, Inc., Wallace E. Diteman and LaNora Diteman, to have first installed all of the required improvements, . . . or, in the alternative, to have first entered into a writ.ten subdivision improvement agreement with . . . Commissioners . . . posting a bond guaranteeing the construc- tion and installation of all required improvements . . . That as a direct and proximate result of the carelessness, negligence, failure, omission or refusal of the . . . Commis- sioners . . . to, follow and abide by Gallatin County Subdivision regulations pertaining to approval of the subdivision plat for Royal Village Subdivision, the Plaintiff . . . has sustained damages in a sum that is at this time undetermined . . . A Commissioner stated by deposition that at the time the plat was approved a good share of the utilities were already in place. The roads were partially complete and some of the water and sewer lines were in. The Commissioner further stated that the Board did not require Diteman to complete the improvements or post a bond because everything was in progress and looked like it was going to be finished. Steiner contends that the Commissioners' failure to comply with its own subdivision regulations is negligence governed by 5 2-9-102, MCA: Governmental entities liable for torts except as specifically provided & legis- 1 ature. Every governmental entity is subject to liability for its torts and those of its employees acting within the scope of their employment or duties whether arising out of a governmental or proprietary function except as specifi- cally provided by the legislature under Article 11, section 18, of The Constitu- tion of the State of Montana. Commissioners contend that a legislative body and its members are immune from suit for damages arising from legislative acts or omissions under 2-9-111, MCA. That section provides: Immunity from suit for legislative acts --- and omissions. (1) As used in this section: (a) the term "governmental entity" includes the state, counties, municipali- ties, and school districts; (b) the term "legislative body" includes the legislature vested with legislative power by A r t i c l e V o f The C o n s t i t u t i o n of t h e S t a t e o f Montana and any l o c a l gov- ernmental e n t i t y given l e g i s l a t i v e powers by s t a t u t e , i n c l u d i n g s c h o o l boards. (2) A governmental e n t i t y is immune from s u i t f o r a n a c t o r omission o f i t s l e g i s - l a t i v e body or a member, o f f i c e r , or a g e n t t h e r e o f . ( 3 ) A member, o f f i c e r , o r a g e n t o f a l e g i s l a t i v e body i s immune from s u i t f o r damages a r i s i n g from t h e l a w f u l d i s c h a r g e of an o f f i c i a l d u t y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f l e g i s l a - t i o n or a c t i o n by t h e l e g i s l a t i v e body. ( 4 ) The immunity provided f o r i n t h i s s e c t i o n does n o t extend t o any t o r t committed by t h e u s e o f a motor v e h i c l e , a i r c r a f t , o r o t h e r means o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . S t e i n e r a r g u e s t h a t under § 2-9-102, MCA, t h e County and Commissioners a r e r e s p o n s i b l e i n t o r t f o r t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e Commissioners t o comply w i t h t h e i r own s u b d i v i s i o n r e g u l a t i o n s . I n p a r t i c u l a r , S t e i n e r a r g u e s t h a t B.M. v. S t a t e o f Montana (Mont. 1 9 8 2 ) , 649 P.2d 425, 39 St.Rep. 1285, is d i s p o s i t i v e of t h i s i s s u e . I n B.M. v. S t a t e a minor c h i l d brought a c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e and o t h e r s c h o o l a u t h o r i t i e s f o r damages a r i s i n g from placement i n a s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n program. The i s s u e o f immunity under § 2-9-111, MCA, was n e i t h e r r a i s e d n o r d i s c u s s e d i n B.M. v. S t a t e and t h e r e f o r e t h a t c a s e i s n o t d i s p o s i t i v e o f t h e i s s u e b e f o r e u s . S e c t i o n 2-9-111, MCA, was e n a c t e d i n 1977. I n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t , t h i s Court l o o k s f i r s t t o t h e p l a i n meaning o f t h e words used i n t h e s t a t u t e . Dorn v. Bd. o f T r u s t . o f B i l l i n g s Sch. D i s t . (Mont. 1 9 8 3 ) , 661 P.2d 426, 430, 40 St.Rep. 348, 352. By i t s t e r m s , t h i s code s e c t i o n answers t h e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d . S u b s e c t i o n ( 2 ) o f B 2-9-111, MCA, d e c l a r e s t h a t a governmental e n t i t y is immune from s u i t f o r an omission o f i t s l e g i s l a t i v e body. In t h i s i n s t a n c e , t h e claimed negl-igent a c t was t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e Commissioners t o r e q u i r e compliance w i t h s u b d i v i s i o n r e g u l a t i o n s p r i o r t o a p p r o v a l o f the plat. That comes expressly within the plain language of subsection (2) . In substance, that paragraph provides that Gallatin County is immune from suit for an act of its legislative body, the Board of County Commissioners. In a similar manner, subsection (3) of § 2-9-111 provides that a member of a legislative body is immune from suit for damages arising from the lawful discharge of an official duty. Again, by the express terms of the statute, the members of the Board of County Commissioners are immune from suit for damages arising from a discharge of their official duty, that being the approval of a plat. We therefore hold that Gallatin County and the Board of County Commissioners of Gallatin County are immune from suit for negligence in the administration of state statutes and subdivision regulations in connection with the approval of the plat of Royal Village Subdivision. We affirm the judgment of the District Court. We concur: