Opinion ID: 2535545
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Camp Fear

Text: ¶ 14. Shaw makes no claim or argument that the promotion of Camp Fear was required by law and, thus, a ministerial function. Still, she asserts MDMH cannot establish that social, economic, or political policy considerations, as described in Jones and its progeny, drove the promotion of Camp Fear. ¶ 15. Shaw argues that Camp Fear constituted a commercial enterprise or a commercial establishment, and [o]bviously, one operating a commercial establishment not remotely connected to the statutory mission of the institution cannot take advantage of the exemption. Shaw provides no authority for this statement. ¶ 16. Indeed, Camp Fear was one of the school's fund-raising efforts, and the proceeds furthered its mission of providing services for its clients. In deposition testimony, Susan MangumDirector of Vocational Services at the school and prime mover behind Camp Fear [14] described the planning process. She met with her supervisor, who authorized her to create the program. She set up a steering committee consisting of herself, the school's recreation staff, and a few others. They planned the fund-raiser to aid in fulfilling the school's purpose of providing care for, and treatment of, mentally retarded persons. ¶ 17. We find helpful the following discussion of the distinction between decisions that are, and are not, grounded in policy: [T]he decision by a bus driver to allow a claimant to exit a school bus at a particular intersection does not implicate policy, and is merely a judgment call, and thus not immunized by this exemption. However, a school board's decision to allow children to de-board buses during thunderstorms, at busy intersections, during nuclear attacks, etc., is a policy decision which may not be second guessed, even where ordinary care is not utilized by the board. Thus, if the board has decided that children may be let off at all intersections, then the driver's decision to do so is immunized as discretionaryi.e., as involving judgment-plus-policy considerations. [15] ¶ 18. Based on these precedents, and the provisions of the MTCA, we find the promotion of Camp Fear involved social and economic policy decisions and so was a discretionary function that qualifies for immunity under the MTCA.