Blier v. Inhabitants of Town of Fort Kent

• Decision Date: 19 February 1971
• Citation: 273 A.2d 732
• Parties: Emile BLIER v. INHABITANTS OF TOWN OF FORT KENT. Emile BLIER v. Clarence BLIER.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

Page 732

273 A.2d 732

Emile BLIER v. INHABITANTS OF TOWN OF FORT KENT.

Emile BLIER v. Clarence BLIER.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Feb. 19, 1971.

Rudolph T. Pelletier, Madawaska, for plaintiff.

James M. Coyne, Caribou, for defendants.

Before DUFRESNE, C. J., and WEBBER, MARDEN, WEATHERBEE and POMEROY, JJ.

DUFRESNE, Chief Justice.

On February 19, 1969 Emile Blier (Plaintiff) recovered judgments in the amount of eighty-four thousand seven hundred fifty-seven ($84,757.00) dollars respectively against both Defendants, the Town, of Fort Kent and its employee, Clarence Blier. The Justice below ruled that at the time Plaintiff suffered his injuries the Town of Fort Kent through its employee, Clarence Blier, was engaged in a proprietary activity and the negligent conduct which gave rise to Plaintiff's cause of action was not committed in the course of the Town's discharge of any governmental or sovereign duty. This ruling is not questioned by the parties. The Town's liability insurance carrier paid fifty thousand ($50,000.00) dollars towards the judgments. This sum represented the total amount of coverage carried by the Town as liability insurance on its employees. Fort Kent filed a motion under 14 M.R.S.A. § 157 seeking abatement of the verdict against it in excess of the policy limit of s50,000. The Court granted relief by abating from the judgment against the Town the amount in excess of the insurance policy coverage. Plaintiff has appealed from this particular ruling. We must sustain the appeal.

The pertinent statute, 14 M.R.S.A. § 157, in effect when the Plaintiff received his injuries, which arose out of the negligent operation of a municipal motor vehicle, reads as follows:

(Public Laws 1965, c. 425, Sec. 8-A)

' § 157. Governmental agencies

The State of Maine or any political subdivision thereof or any quasi-municipal corporation or quasi-governmental agency, whether acting in its governmental or proprietary capacity, shall be considered to have waived its immunity from liability for damages arising out of its negligent operation of a motor vehicle during the period a policy of insurance is effective covering the liability of such governmental agency. Each policy of insurance issued to such governmental agency shall contain a provision to the effect that the insurer shall be estopped from asserting, as a defense to any claim covered by said policy, that such governmental agency is immune from liability on the ground that it is a governmental agency. The amount of damages in any such case shall not exceed the limits of soverage specified in the policy, and the courts shall abate any verdict in any such action to the extent that it exceeds such policy limit.' (Emphasis supplied.)

The Court below in granting relief reasoned that the statute was unambiguous and its broad terms manifested a legislative intent to limit governmental responsibility, when the governmental agency carried liability insurance, to the amount of insurance coverage and that any damages in excess thereof must be abated in any and all cases, whether the damages arose out of an activity within the governmental or proprietary capacity of the governmental unit. With this, we disagree.

At the time of the enactment of 14 M.R.S.A. § 157 by Public Laws 1965, C. 425, Sec. 8-A, it was the settled law of this State that when the employees of a municipal corporation are engaged in what may be called a governmental function, or public duty, the municipal corporation is not liable for their acts of negligence. Bouchard v. City of Auburn, 1935, 133 Me. 439, 179 A. 718. But, when public or governmental use gives way to use for private gain and the municipality is conducting an activity not as a legislatively imposed duty but as a voluntarily undertaken enterprise for its own immediate profit and advantage as a corporation, although ultimately enuring to the benefit of the public, the performance of acts done in what may be called its private or proprietary character resulting in injury from negligence of its employees is actionable. See, Libby v. Portland, 1909, 105 Me. 370, 74 A. 805; Keeley v. City of Portland, 1905, 100 Me. 260, 61 A. 180. The liability of cities and towns for the negligence of thier officers and agents was made to depend upon which of their two classes of powers, that of sovereignty or merely corporate, is being exercised when the damage complained of is done. The exact line of demarcation between the powers is oftentimes difficult to ascertain. For torts in connection with the performance of governmental functions the municipal corporation is not liable, but for negligent conduct in the course of the exercise of proprietary powers, the municipality is governed by the same rules as individuals or private corporations and may be responsible in damages. Anderson v. City of Portland, 1931, 130 Me. 214, 154 A. 572. Such was the common law rule before the legislative change made in 1965.

This Court must assume that, in the passage of the 1965 waiver-of-immunity act respecting governmental responsibility for torts arising out of the negligent operation of motor vehicles, the Legislature acted with full knowledge of the common law restrictions upon municipal liability as said limitations had been judicially declared in existing decisions of this Court. See, State v. Webber, 1926, 125 Me. 319, 133 A. 738; 31 A C.J.S. Evidence § 132(1), p. 253, and cases cited at note 97.6.

'It is also a presumption that in exercising its prerogative in enacting laws the Legislature does so in view of, and with reference to, existing laws and judicial decisions; and that a particular statute was enacted by it 'in the light' of such judicial decisions as had a direct bearing upon such statute.' In re Garthwaite's Estate, 1933, 131 Cal.App. 321, 21 P.2d 465.

'It is to be presumed the Legislature enacted this amendment with a full knowledge of the existing conditions of the common law and of statutes with respect to the subject-matter.' T. M. Crutcher Dental Depot v. Miller, 1933, 251 Ky. 201, 64 S.W.2d 466.

Conceding that in the construction of a statute the fundamental rule is the legislative intent, nevertheless when faced with a statute in derogation of the common law, we must in seeking legislative intendment apply the strict construction standard as such a statute is not to be extended by implication. Hunter v. Totman, 1951, 146 Me. 259 at 265, 80 A.2d 401 at 404. Furthermore, we restated in Stanton v. Trustees of St. Joseph's College, 1967, Me., 233 A.2d 718, at page 722 the well established rule of statutory construction that the common law is not to be changed by doubtful implication or overturned except by clear and unambiguous language, and that a statute in derogation of it will not effect a change thereof beyond its clear mandate either by express terms or by necessary implication.

In determining the effect and meaning of the 1965 act, this Court with these presumptions as guidelines in mind may look to the public policy of the state and any alteration thereof to be achieved, the condition of existing law, the object to be promoted by the legislation, the relief to be afforded, and any other facts throwing light on the purpose and intention of the Legislature. Legislative expression must be read in the light of the lawmakers' purpose as the object the statute designs to accomplish oftentimes furnishes the right key to the true meaning of any statutory clause or provision. Middleton's Case, 1939, 136 Me. 108, 3 A.2d 434.

The real purpose of the act was to permit limited recovery of compensatory damages from the State of Maine or any political subdivision thereof, meaning any municipal agency such as a city or town, including any quasi-municipal corporation or quasi-governmental agency, in favor of persons injured or damaged by reason of the negligent operation of any governmental motor vehicles. Recovery was restricted to the limits of policy coverage and was conditioned on the existence of such coverage at the time of the negligent conduct. The obvious object of the statute is, as the language of the legislation makes clear, that the governmental agency involved, in the circumstances stated, 'shall be considered to have waived its immunity from liability for damages' and that 'each policy of insurance issued to such governmental agency shall contain a provision to the effect...