Opinion ID: 2445730
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Interpretation of Appurtenance

Text: [¶ 30] The term appurtenance is not defined in the MTCA. The statute simply creates an exception to immunity when a governmental entity is negligent in the construction, operation or maintenance of any public building or the appurtenances to any public building. 14 M.R.S. § 8104-A(2). Because the term is not defined, we must employ principles of statutory construction in determining what constitutes an appurtenance for purposes of the MTCA. [¶ 31] The first step in statutory interpretation requires an examination of the plain meaning of the statutory language. . . in the context of the whole statutory scheme. State v. Stevens, 2007 ME 5, ¶ 8, 912 A.2d 1229, 1233 (quotation marks omitted). Title 1 M.R.S. § 72(3) (2009) states: Words and phrases shall be construed according to the common meaning of the language. Technical words and phrases and such as have a peculiar meaning convey such technical or peculiar meaning. It is therefore appropriate to use dictionary definitions to assist in statutory construction. See State v. Spaulding, 1998 ME 29, ¶ 7 n. 2, 707 A.2d 378, 379. [¶ 32] In Sanford v. Town of Shapleigh , we noted the straightforward dictionary-derived meaning of appurtenance as `[s]omething that belongs or is attached to something else,' and appurtenant means being `[a]nnexed to a more important thing.' 2004 ME 73, ¶ 9, 850 A.2d 325, 328 (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 98 (7th ed.1999)). [2] The Black's Law Dictionary definition is consistent with the definition from Webster's Dictionary: appurtenances are accessory objects used in any function. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 107(2002). [¶ 33] As the definition from Black's Law Dictionary establishes, an object may be appurtenant to a building either because it belongs to it or because it is attached to it. The use of the disjunctive is important because this definition contemplates that something might belong to a building even if it is not attached to it. Thus, belonging to and being attached to are two distinct and different ways in which something can be considered an appurtenance. [¶ 34] The Court does not address whether the visitors' bleachers belonged to the high school. Instead, it focuses exclusively on a restriction that we created in Sanford a restriction not found in the definition of appurtenance and directed at a concern not present here. [¶ 35] Sanford involved whether a freestanding, wheeled trash bin located in a parking lot at the Town's waste transfer station was an appurtenance under the MTCA. 2004 ME 73, ¶ 7, 850 A.2d at 328. In that case, we considered whether the trash bin's function should control its classification as an appurtenance. We noted that although a function-based definition would be sensible and practical, we were concerned that, on the facts of that case, a function-based definition related to movable property might unduly expand governmental liability. Id. ¶¶ 8, 11, 850 A.2d at 328, 329. We held that such a movable item was not an appurtenance to a public building based on its status as personal property that does not belong and is not attached to the building. Id. ¶ 12, 850 A.2d at 329. [¶ 36] Sanford, therefore, does not govern the instant case. The visitors' bleachers are significantly different from the trash bin in Sanford. The ten-level bleachers were assembled on a metal frame that rested on the ground adjacent to the field. They could not be moved without being disassembled. They had remained in place for about six years before the accident in 2006. [¶ 37] Following the accident, the school replaced the wooden bleachers on the visitors' side with aluminum bleachers. They were similar to the wooden bleachers in that they were freestanding and not permanently attached to the ground or to cement pillars like the home bleachers. Also like the previous wooden bleachers, the aluminum bleachers could not be removed without being disassembled. The school superintendent characterized the freestanding aluminum bleachers as permanent and not meant to be moved. He also differentiated these types of bleachers from portable bleachers that the school used on their athletic fields. The portable bleachers had wheels attached and could be moved without being disassembled and reassembled. [¶ 38] Unlike these portable bleachers and unlike the trash bin in Sanford, the bleachers where the injury occurred were not portable. They were a structure that belonged to the high school building and supported the core functions of the high school. As such they were an appurtenance to the high school. [¶ 39] The case law preceding Sanford also fails to lend support to the Court's decision. In Kitchen v. City of Calais, we concluded that raised curbing in the parking area was not an appurtenance to the police station. 666 A.2d 77, 78 (Me.1995). In reaching this result, we reasoned that to conclude otherwise would render the provisions of 14 M.R.S. § 8104-A(2), (4) (2009) redundant; we did not rely upon any definition or understanding of the term appurtenance. Kitchen, 666 A.2d at 78-79. In Stretton v. City of Lewiston, we determined that an unimproved athletic field was not an appurtenance to a public building. 588 A.2d 739, 741 (Me.1991). Because, as a general rule, an appurtenance refers to an object or thing and not to land, see 23 Am. Jur.2d Deeds §§ 53, 55 (2002), this case also fails to assist in interpreting the term. [¶ 40] The majority opinion also limits the definition of appurtenance by equating fixtures with appurtenances. While it is true that all fixtures are appurtenances, not all appurtenances are fixtures. A fixture is one kind of appurtenance. If the Legislature wanted to limit liability to public buildings or fixtures, it could have used the term fixture. Although the Court cites authorities that accurately define the term fixture, the MTCA uses the term appurtenance. We must not be limited by the law surrounding fixtures because to do so improperly limits the definition of an appurtenance. [¶ 41] Applying the definition of appurtenance to this case could only result in a determination that the bleachers are appurtenances to the high school.