Opinion ID: 1983815
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The City's Motion to Dismiss

Text: The Owners in this case concede that they seek contribution for claims arising solely from the failure of a fire protection system to warn the tenants of the building. Section 8104-A of the Act excepts specified actions of a governmental entity from the general blanket of immunity provided by section 8103. [2] As we recognized in McNally v. Town of Freeport, 414 A.2d 904, 906 n. 3 (Me.1980), the legislative history of section 8104-A(1)(G) is unclear and we should be wary of announcing an all-inclusive definition. [3] Furthermore, we strictly construe any exception to governmental immunity. Brooks v. Augusta Mental Health Inst., 606 A.2d 789, 790 (Me.1992). Our interpretation of what constitutes other machinery or equipment appears in McNally. There, we stated: It is sufficient to note that for a device to come within the meaning of § 8104[-A](1)(G) it must, as a result of its negligent ownership, maintenance or use, create a risk of injury to person or property comparable to the risk created by the negligent ownership, maintenance or use of the specifically enumerated items of machinery and equipment. McNally, 414 A.2d at 906. In other words, for the fire protection system to come within this exception, the risk that would result from its negligent ownership, maintenance or use must be comparable to the risk that results from the negligent ownership, maintenance or use of a car, aircraft, snowmobile, etc. We have previously held that neither a hypodermic syringe, McNally, 414 A.2d at 906, nor a golf course sprinkler system, Petillo v. City of Portland, 657 A.2d 325, 327 (Me.1995), are other machinery or equipment within the meaning of section 8104-A(1)(G). Consistent with our approach to the interpretation of section 8104-A(1)(G) we conclude that a fire protection system is not other machinery or equipment within the meaning of the Act. Because the fire department's alleged actions do not fall within an exception to immunity the City is immune to the claim of the Owners. The entry is: Judgment vacated. Remanded for the entry of an order dismissing the third-party complaint. All concurring.