Supreme Court remands skateboarding case

In a 4-3 decision with potential impacts to cities and towns across the state, a divided Montana Supreme Court remanded the Kent v. City of Columbia Falls skateboarding case back to Flathead County District Court so it can be decided at trial on its merits.

Casey Kent, 35, died on June 14, 2008, while skateboarding on a steep bike path in the Cedar Pointe Estates subdivision. His wife Sara Kent sued the city of Columbia Falls three years later, claiming the city was negligent in its role overseeing the design and development of the subdivision.

District Court Judge Robert Allison granted the city’s request for summary judgment on March 21, 2014 and denied Sara Kent’s motion for reconsideration. She appealed.

The Supreme Court’s ruling hinged on the use of the “public duty doctrine,” which holds that a governmental entity cannot be held liable for an individual plaintiff’s injury that resulted from the government’s breach of duty to the general public rather than to the individual plaintiff.

Justice Patricia Cotter wrote the court’s 24-page ruling and added a four-page concurring opinion that stated “it is time to reconsider and rein in the application of the public duty doctrine.”

Citing changing case law, Cotter concluded that “the public duty doctrine has morphed from a doctrine born and intended to apply only to the actions and decisions of law enforcement into one that is applied to a broad swath of governmental actions and omissions.”

Whereas the public duty doctrine originated as a way to protect police and firemen while engaged in dangerous emergencies, the Kent skateboarding case involves city planning, zoning and engineering review.

But those kinds of activities also need protecting, Justice Beth Baker argued in her 13-page dissenting opinion. Without such protection, cities and towns could be exposed to “ceaseless litigation” and interference in how local governments decide “how to best use limited resources to benefit the public.”

“Development of real property almost always requires a local government’s oversight, regulation and tacit or explicit approval,” Baker said. “Today’s decision, which situates local governments as the insurers of private developers, thus risks innumerable lawsuits and burdening the discretion of governments to use their limited resources to advance the general welfare.”

It was APEX Engineering of Kalispell that brought up public duty doctrine, not Sara Kent. Formerly Schwarz Architecture & Engineering, the firm that designed Cedar Pointe Estates has already settled with Kent.

An exception to the public duty doctrine can be established by showing a “special relationship” exists between a city and an injured party. Sara Kent’s attorneys argued that the city’s detailed involvement in the design of the subdivision established a special relationship.

Judge Allison had agreed, noting that “the city’s involvement went beyond mere approval” and “the city appears to have taken an active role in deciding the location and layout of the trail system.”

The Supreme Court cited a letter by APEC indicating they had conferred with Columbia Falls city manager Bill Shaw about the steep grade of the bike trail and learned “the city had no expectation of ADA-compliance for the walking path.”

“Additionally, at multiple times during construction the city notified engineers and contractors on the project that failure to comply with the city’s instructions could result in the city’s denial of approval or rejection of the project,” the Supreme Court said.

The high court’s Dec. 21, 2012 ruling in Gatlin-Johnson v. Miles City has set a new standard for the public duty doctrine. In a case where an 8-year-old girl was hurt in a city playground, the Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs should have an opportunity to bring their case to court and not be denied under the public duty doctrine.

In her dissent, Baker noted that Miles City owned the playground, so premises liability came into play. The city of Columbia Falls does not own the Cedar Pointe bike paths. Baker also noted that Sara Kent did not argue in district court that the special relationship exception applied.