Opinion ID: 697702
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Indiana Tort Claim

Text: 39 Finally, Pro-Eco asserts a vague tort claim under Indiana law that it says guarantees Pro-Eco the right to engage in a lawful business. Whatever the viability of such a claim under Indiana law, Pro-Eco may not proceed with it because Indiana provides immunity for local government entities from liability for loss resulting from the adoption and enforcement of or failure to adopt and enforce a law.... IND.CODE ANN. 34-4-16.5-3(7) (West 1995). 40 Pro-Eco argues that immunity does not apply because the Board acted outside of its statutory authority when it enacted the moratorium and that, therefore, the Board's action did not constitute discretionary authority. The Indiana Court of Appeals, in Harvey v. Board of Comm'rs of Wabash County, 416 N.E.2d 1296, 1299 (Ind.Ct.App.1981), read into adoption and enforcement immunity a requirement that the governmental entity act in a discretionary, rather than ministerial, capacity. It refused to find immunity for Wabash County against a lawsuit arising from an auto accident where the county decided to put up a road sign but failed to follow the legislatively prescribed quality control regulations when placing the signs. Once the county decided to place the signs, the Harvey court held, its discretionary functions ended, its ministerial functions began, and immunity fell away: The question is 'Did Wabash County break the law?' Not 'Did Wabash County make the law?'. Id. at 1299. 41 The Indiana Supreme Court has modified adoption and enforcement immunity analysis, however. Now, instead of discerning between discretionary and ministerial functions, courts decide whether the allegedly tortious conduct was planning (immunity) or operational (no immunity) in nature. Peavler v. Monroe County Bd. of Comm'rs, 528 N.E.2d 40, 46 (Ind.1988). There, the court noted that Tort immunity for basic planning and policy-making functions is necessary to avoid the chilling effect on the ability of the government to deal effectively with difficult policy issues which it confronts daily. Id. at 44. Those functions ought to be immune which involve the exercise of political power which is held accountable only to the Constitution or the political process. Id. at 45 (citation omitted). 42 There may be cases where an elected governmental body decides through an immune, executive-style planning process to adopt a policy, and then becomes a potentially liable, operational body in carrying out its policy. But the adoption of an ordinance through a legislative process, even if it runs afoul of higher authority in some procedural manner, is a basic planning and policy-making function that should not be chilled by the prospect of common law tort liability. The most that could be said for the operational (or ministerial) functions of the Board here is that they merged with the Board's discretionary functions into one action. We believe that the policy making capacity of the Board should control. That does not mean that ordinances enacted in violation of higher authority should stand, but remedies other than tort liability exist to strike down problematic laws, such as the remedy of declaratory judgment Pro-Eco obtained here. And, ultimately, the political process is the best remedy of all against an elected body.