Opinion ID: 2630464
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Waiver of discretionary-act immunity

Text: On appeal, Boulder City contends that the district court erred in holding it liable because it is a political subdivision of the State of Nevada and, under the terms of NRS 41.032(2), political subdivisions are immune from liability resulting from the discretionary acts of their agents or employees. BEI points out as a threshold matter that Boulder City failed to assert qualified immunity as an affirmative defense below and argues that the defense was therefore waived. Although Boulder City maintains that its claim of immunity involves a question of subject-matter jurisdiction that can be raised at any time, we disagree. While issues of absolute governmental immunity implicate the subject-matter jurisdiction of Nevada courts, issues of qualified governmental immunity do not. In the context of a claim of absolute judicial immunity, we stated in State of Nevada v. District Court (Ducharm) [8] that absolute immunity is distinguishable from qualified immunity, [which is] an affirmative defense the defendant must plead. [9] And, in University & Community College System v. Sutton, [10] we noted that NRS 41.032(2) provides qualified immunity to state agencies in the performance of discretionary acts. [11] Accordingly, discretionary-act immunity is waived unless affirmatively pleaded, tried by consent, or otherwise litigated in a matter. [12] Here, despite Boulder City's failure to affirmatively plead the defense of discretionary-act immunity, the district court sua sponte tried the issue when it determined that Hansen was not liable for his discretionary acts, and the parties did not object to the district court's grant of discretionary-act immunity to Hansen. [13] Accordingly, we conclude the issue was tried by consent. Further, once the parties failed to object, and thereby tried the issue by consent, the district court was free to sua sponte dismiss Hansen on the basis of discretionary immunity. [14] Accordingly, it is appropriate for us to review the qualified immunity issue on appeal. As we have previously indicated, [t]he application of sovereign immunity under NRS Chapter 41 presents mixed questions of law and fact. This court reviews conclusions of law, such as those entailing statutory construction, de novo. This court will not disturb a lower court's findings of fact if supported by substantial evidence. [15]