Court Opinion

ID: 9933557
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:42:13.481712+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:11.450958
License: Public Domain

I concur in the result as to the fraud claim. I dissent as to the negligence claim.
What is discretion?
Where is the discretion in this case? *Page 404 
There is sufficient evidence of negligence to go to the trier of facts in this case. The majority holds that Blankenship exercised discretion when he denied the septic tank permit, and, therefore, that he is immune from liability for negligence as a matter of law. It appears to me that it is not the denial of the permit that constituted negligence, but the issuance of the permit initially that caused Pack to construct the house on this particular lot in accordance with the permit issued. From the facts in the record, one could conclude that Blankenship was negligent in issuing this permit. If no on-site septic disposal system could have been approved for the lot on which Pack built the house, then Blankenship could not issue a permit. On the other hand, if the building lot properly percolated, then Blankenship had no discretion to deny the permit. So where is the discretion? Discretionary immunity has become something more akin to absolute immunity, because the majority of this Court has removed the discretionary aspect.
INGRAM, J., concurs.