 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
New Orleans Tanker Corp. v. Department of Transportation4/28/1999
Reporter of Decisions
Argued: February 3, 1999
New Orleans Tanker Corporation appeals from an order entered in the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Cole, J.) dismissing its complaint against the Department of Transportation (DOT) on the basis of sovereign immunity pursuant to the Maine Tort Claims Act (MTCA), 14 M.R.S.A. §§ 8101-8118 (1980 & Supp. 1998). New Orleans contends that the court erred because its claim against the DOT for the negligent operation of the bridge leaf machinery on the Portland-South Portland Bridge (Million Dollar Bridge) falls within a statutory exception, 14 M.R.S.A. § 8104-A, to general governmental immunity provided by the MTCA. We disagree and affirm the judgment.
In December 1997, New Orleans, the bareboat charterer of the Overseas New Orleans, filed a complaint against the DOT for the negligent operation of the bridge leaf machinery on the Million Dollar Bridge. The complaint alleged that on December 23, 1995, the Overseas New Orleans was sailing westbound under the bridge when it came in contact with the bridge leaf on the Portland side of the bridge. The complaint charged the DOT with negligence in the ownership, maintenance, or use of the bridge machinery by either failing to open the bridge leaf completely or by dropping the bridge leaf on the vessel. New Orleans appeals the dismissal of the complaint pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
A motion to dismiss pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. See Dexter v. Town of Norway, 1998 ME 195, § 7, 715 A.2d 169, 171. We view the material allegation of the complaint as admitted and examine the complaint "in the light most favorable to the plaintiff to determine whether it sets forth elements of a cause of action or alleges facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief pursuant to some legal theory." Id. (quoting McAfee v. Cole, 637 A.2d 463, 465 (Me. 1994)). "A dismissal is appropriate only when it appears beyond doubt that a plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any set of facts that he might prove in support of his claim." Id. The legal sufficiency of a complaint is a question of law. See Sargent v. Buckley, 1997 ME 159, § 10, 697 A.2d 1272, 1275.
The MTCA provides immunity to all governmental entities from suit on all tort claims seeking recovery for damages, "except as otherwise expressly provided by statute." See 14 M.R.S.A. §§ 8103-8104-A. Section 8104-A provides the exceptions to governmental immunity at issue in this case:
" governmental entity is liable for property damage, bodily injury or death in the following instances.
"1. Ownership; maintenance or use of vehicles, machinery and equipment. A governmental entity is liable for its negligent acts or omissions in its ownership, maintenance or use of any:
"A. Motor vehicle . . . :
"B. Special mobile equipment . . . ;
"C. Trailers . . . ;
"D. Aircraft . . . ;
"E. Watercraft . . . ;
"F. Snowmobiles . . . ;
"G. Other machinery or equipment, whether mobile or stationary."
In interpreting the statute to determine if the bridge leaf machinery is included within the meaning of "other machinery or equipment," we start from the premise that immunity is the rule and exceptions to immunity are to be strictly construed. In Young v. Greater Portland Transit Dist., 535 A.2d 417, 419 (Me. 1987), we stated that the MTCA "employed an 'exception-to-immunity' approach rather than an 'exception-to-liability' approach." We have consistently required the strict construction of the exceptions to immunity since the enactment of the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Maine Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|