Opinion ID: 2108083
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Doctrine of Governmental (or Sovereign) Immunity

Text: The principles of sovereign immunity are well established in the District. Under this doctrine, the District is immune from suit in tort if the act complained of was committed in the exercise of a discretionary function. But where the District's conduct arises out of the exercise of ministerial powers, `there is a duty to act in a reasonably safe and skillful manner.' District of Columbia v. Pace, 498 A.2d 226, 228 (D.C.1985) (citations omitted); see id. at 228-30 (distinguishing the discretionary functions of planning and design from negligence in maintaining a structure, and holding that a suit involving the latter would not be barred by sovereign immunity); [3] accord, Tucci v. District of Columbia, 956 A.2d 684, 697 (D.C.2008) (The District is protected by sovereign immunity if the [ ] acts [at issue] are discretionary, but subject to liability if the acts were ministerial in character.) (citation and punctuation omitted). Generally, discretionary acts involve the formulation of policy, while ministerial acts involve the execution of policy. Nealon v. District of Columbia, 669 A.2d 685, 690 (D.C.1995). [4] The inquiry into whether an action is discretionary goes beyond whether the act entailed a choice among alternatives. It seeks to ascertain whether the governmental action at issue allows significant enough application of choice to justify official immunity, in order to ensure fearless, vigorous and effective decision making. Casco Marina Development, L.L.C. v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, 834 A.2d 77, 81 (D.C.2003) (citation and internal punctuation omitted). In a roughly comparable situation involving the grounds of a public school, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was not persuaded . . . that the function of repairing broken guardrails imposes upon the District determinations of such delicacy and difficulty that its ability to furnish public education will be ponderably impaired by liability for neglect in failing to make such repairs. Elgin v. District of Columbia, 119 U.S.App. D.C. 116, 120-21, 337 F.2d 152, 156-57 (1964). We review a trial court's determination regarding the applicability of sovereign immunity de novo. Aguehounde v. District of Columbia, 666 A.2d 443, 447 (D.C.1995) (whether sovereign immunity applies is a determination to be made by the trial judge, not the jury, and this court conducts a de novo review of the trial court's determination) (citations omitted).