Municipal County Local Governmental Liability Chart 00212510

MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C.
Hartford, WI ❖ New Orleans, LA ❖ Orange County, CA

❖ Austin, TX ❖ Jacksonville, FL ❖ Boston, MA
Phone: (800) 637-9176
gwickert@mwl-law.com
www.mwl-law.com
MUNICIPAL/COUNTY/LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY AND TORT LIABILITY IN ALL 50 STATES

“Governmental immunity” concerns itself with the various legal doctrines or statutes that provide municipalities, local government entities, and political subdivisions
immunity from tort-based claims, as well as exceptions from and limitations to that immunity. Generally, a state government is immune from tort suits by individuals
under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Local governments, municipalities (cities), counties, towns, and other political subdivisions of the state, however, are
immune from tort suits by virtue of governmental immunity. This is because the state grants them immunity, usually in the state’s Constitution. This chart deals with
governmental immunity and liability of municipal, county, and local government in all 50 states. It should be noted that lawsuits against local governmental entities,
their officers, and employees are frequently asserted under federal law, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or other similar statutes. This chart deals only with the separate body of
law governing claims against local governments. It does not cover federal claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) (28 U.S.C. § 2674) or claims of negligence
against state governments, the latter of which is the subject of another chart that can be found HERE.
The broader doctrine of sovereign immunity traces its common law origins to the notion that the king made the laws, and thus anything the king did was perforce legal.
The doctrine was thought to pass through to several states before the founding of this country. When the Constitution was drafted in 1787, Article III raised questions
about this principle by exposing states to suits from citizens of other states and foreign states. U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2 (“The judicial Power shall extend ... to
Controversies ... between a State and Citizens of another State ... and between a State ... and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects”). In 1793, the U.S. Supreme Court
dealt precisely with this issue in Chisholm v. Georgia and abolished the doctrine of sovereign immunity with respect to states. Chisolm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793)
(“the Constitution warrants a suit against a State, by an individual citizen of another State”). Several years later, in response to Chisholm, Congress proposed, and
three-fourths of the states ratified, the Eleventh Amendment, which reinstated states’ sovereign immunity, at least to the extent that Article III encroached upon it.
Therefore, there could be no valid suit against a government entity. By the early 1800s, this sovereign immunity was adopted by nearly every state. However, the
enjoyment of sovereign immunity is limited to government bodies that are truly “sovereign,” namely the U.S. federal government and each state government. This
presumed immunity was based on the belief that governments would be paralyzed if they faced potential liability for all actions of their employees. Sovereign
immunity today has been limited or eliminated, at least in part, in most jurisdictions by either legislative or judicial action.
The doctrine of sovereign immunity varies from state to state but is usually contained either in a statutory framework (such as a Tort Claims Act) or within judicial and
case decisions. Excluded from the doctrine are cities and municipalities, which are considered to be mere creatures of the legislature, and which have no inherent
power and must exercise delegated power strictly within the limitations prescribed by the state legislature. As such, by default, municipalities are liable for their
actions unless shielded by state law. The constitution of a particular state may grant that state and its political subdivisions “absolute sovereign immunity” — meaning
that those local government entities are shielded from suit unless the legislature explicitly creates a statutory exception waiving immunity or the municipality or local
WORK PRODUCT OF MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page 1 Last Updated 2/14/22
government entity waives its immunity by contract and purchases insurance to cover any resulting liability obligations. Immunity of local government and political
subdivisions is known as “governmental immunity” because it is granted by state government as opposed to common law.
State Immunity vs. Political Subdivision Immunity

Most states have two parallel systems and bodies of law for governmental tort immunity: one for the state and another for political subdivisions created by the state
to help fulfil their obligations (county, city, town, school district, water districts, park districts, airport districts, etc.). A “political subdivision” is a local governmental
entity that is in some ways distinct from or a subset of the state, but nevertheless exercises a “slice of state power.” They include counties, cities, towns, villages, and
special districts such as school districts, water districts, park districts, and airport districts. In some states, there are separate Acts covering each – as in Pennsylvania
where there is a State Sovereign Immunity Act covering the liability of the state (referred to as the “Commonwealth” in Pennsylvania) and a State Tort Claims Act
covering the liability of political subdivisions.
Although it varies from state to state, much of the law involving governmental immunity focuses on whether (1) the employee who caused the injury was acting within
the scope of the employee’s duties and (2) whether the activity in which the employee was engaged was the type of act which public policy deems worthy of granting
immunity. It is almost universally agreed that a total waiver of government immunity is undesirable. However, creating standards and tests to separate those acts that
should be protected from those that should create liability has been a difficult, complex, and an imperfect effort. There is a lot of blurring and conflating of concepts
used to describe and categorize local government actions from state to state. However, in general, the concepts and terms used have distinct differences and you
should be familiar with them.
Governmental / Discretionary Acts
For many years, local government was liable only for proprietary acts and not governmental acts. The rule attempted to distinguish between municipal activities which
are inherently public in nature and those which merely supplant or parallel the workings of the private sector. The rule made a “vertical” classification of activities, in
the sense that broad spheres of official concern such as education, police and fire protection, hospitals, garbage collection, maintenance of streets and sidewalks,
sewage, and provision of water, electricity and transportation, are each labeled either governmental or proprietary. Once a service or action was classified as
governmental, local governmental immunity applied on all levels in the provision of this governmental service. This simple test failed to take into account the nature of
the activity. At its simplest, this distinction looked like this:
Governmental Act: Local government is not liable – had immunity.
Proprietary Act: Local government is liable – immunity waived.
Governmental functions are those activities that are “discretionary, political, legislative, or public in nature and performed for the public good on behalf of the State.”
Millar v. Town of Wilson, 23 S.E.2d 340 (N.C. 1942). They are undertakings that are commercial or chiefly for the private advantage of the compact community. Courts
had a hard time applying these inexact standards to particular activities, causing irreconcilable splits of authority and confusion. For example, in North Carolina, the
operation of a municipal airport has been considered a proprietary function, even though a statute declared it to be governmental. Rhodes v. City of Asheville, 52
S.E.2d 371 (N.C. 1949).
Proprietary functions are undertakings that are commercial or chiefly for the private advantage of the compact community. A proprietary function is one that a private
entity can perform and is not uniquely for the benefit of the general public. The discretionary function defense applies to discretionary governmental functions, but not
for proprietary (or ministerial) functions. There are many grey areas where states reach difference results, such as whether the design of highways is governmental or
proprietary. Many states do not consider personal medical services, such as prenatal care clinics and general indigent medical care clinics, to be governmental
functions and apply ordinary medical malpractice law to them, although some states do include these under governmental immunity. On the other hand, if the medical
service is related to protecting the public, rather than just helping one person, it will be considered governmental. In this regard, the treatment and testing for
tuberculosis would be a governmental function.
The older governmental (immune) v. proprietary (not immune) rule looked only to the level at which the decision to undertake the activity was made. Over time, this
simple distinction lost its vitality as an accurate or adequate rationale for the immunity privilege. As one court put it:
Perhaps the best encapsulation of our sentiments concerning the governmental-proprietary standard was articulated by Justice Lavendar of the Oklahoma
Supreme Court when he stated “Judicial attempts to grapple with what has become a multi-addered medusa has resulted in confusion and uncertainty all too
painfully apparent to legal scholars, and an inability on the part of the courts to evolve any definitive guidelines. Vanderpool v. State, 672 P.2d 1153 (Okla. 1983).
Inconsistency developed with regard to which activities were which. Even the U.S. Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with and condemned this simple
distinction. Indian Towing Co. v. U.S., 350 U.S. 61 (1955). A concept of municipal immunity driven by a purpose not to jeopardize the quality and efficiency of
government by exposing the exercise of discretion in the formulation of government policy to tort liability led to an evolved concept of municipal immunity under
which any function (governmental or proprietary) can now come within a discretionary function exception to either liability or immunity.
Discretionary vs. Ministerial Acts

For many years, the broader distinction of proprietary vs. governmental was the simple but inadequate litmus test. Over time, however, it became infused with the
narrower terminology of ministerial vs. discretionary. Rather than local government automatically being immune from suit whenever a governmental act was involved,
state law began to borrow the discretionary function rule which originated with the Federal Tort Claims Act in 1946, which exempted from liability any act based on the
exercise or performance (or the failure to exercise or perform) a discretionary function or duty, whether or not the discretion is abused. A discretionary act is a
government action performed according to legal authority, established procedures or instructions from a superior, without exercising any individual judgment. It can
be any act a government employee performs in a prescribed manner, without exercising any individual judgment or discretion. The repair of equipment on a school
playground, although a governmental function, was not of such a nature as to pose threats to the quality and efficiency of government if tort liability attached. In this
fashion, the concept of a discretionary act test found its way into the field of local governmental immunity.
In general, only discretion and judgment at the highest levels call for the imposition of governmental immunity for local government. Even this test, however, has a lack
of an adequate and clear standard for determining what a discretionary function is. No state legislature has attempted to clearly define what this term means. State
courts have developed three basic approaches or interpretations:
(1) Literal or semantic definition. The problem with this approach is that there is some level of discretion involved in almost every governmental act.
(2) Standard which distinguishes “planning level functions” from “operational level functions.” This generally means that only basic policy decisions are immune. A
policy decision (state policy of maintaining highways) may be discretionary, but subsequent ministerial actions undertaken to implement the policy decision
(how roads will be salted or where highway signs will be placed) are considered ministerial acts for which liability may attach. Utah, Hawaii, and Alaska are
examples of states which use this distinction. If an act takes place on a higher, planning level, it is discretionary and immune.
(3) Flexible approach which evaluates the particular facts in light of the purpose of the exception. Many states, often those without a statutory discretionary
function rule, look past the planning/operational distinction, and instead inquire whether the decision is the kind that is delegated to a coordinate branch of
government and are therefore immune. Does the act involve a basic governmental policy, program, or objective? Is the act essential to the accomplishment of
that policy, program, or objective? Does it require evaluation, judgment, and expertise? Oregon and Washington are examples of this approach. There is very
little difference in the effect of this approach and the second approach, and the difference is mainly one of semantics.
None of these approaches clearly defines or sets forth those activities for which a government is liable. There is no immunity from liability arising out of the negligent
performance of a proprietary or ministerial act by a local governmental employee. A ministerial act is one performed under a given set of facts and in a prescribed
manner in obedience to the mandate of legal authority (e.g., statute, established procedure, instructions from a superior, or other legal authority) without regard to, or
the exercise of, the individual judgment of the local government employee on the propriety (i.e., the appropriateness) of the act being done. In other words, the local
government employee is compelled by law to do the act and to do it in a particular manner. An act is usually ministerial even though the employee must use judgment
to determine if a set of facts exist that make it necessary to perform the act. Examples of a ministerial act include entry of an order by a court clerk, notarizing a
document, issuing a building permit, approving a real estate subdivision, and determining the existence of facts and applying them as required by law, without any
discretion. Acts which would not be considered ministerial include decisions about application of a tax law, auditing an income tax return, and determining facts and
applying law to those facts.
Immune “discretionary” actions include governing and supervisory decisions, such as how much priority is placed on the enforcement of ordinances and codes, the
allocation of resources, the number of staff assigned to a project, the timing or placement of traffic lights, and how laws are enforced. “Proprietary” actions, on the
other hand, include the method of performing government functions. For example, the negligence of a municipal employee that results in injury can expose the
municipality to tort liability. The waiver of sovereign immunity in such a case only opens the door to litigation; it does not change burdens of proof or elements of a
tort. In order to prevail in a tort suit, a plaintiff must still demonstrate all the necessary elements of a tort: duty, breach, causation, and damages. Under common law,
the sovereign state enjoyed absolute governmental immunity while municipalities did not. Although it varies from state to state, today, municipalities are only immune
for governmental functions, i.e., those inherent state police powers that embody the government’s fundamental legal obligation to preserve the general public health,
safety, and welfare. They are generally not immune from liability for proprietary functions, i.e., when acting like a private business on their own behalf and/or for the
benefit of their own citizens. When injuries arose from a proprietary function, municipalities can often be held liable like a private individual for negligence.
Public Duty Doctrine

Separate and apart from the concepts of sovereign immunity and official immunity, some states adopt the public duty doctrine. The public duty doctrine states that a
public employee is not civilly liable for the breach of a duty owed to the general public, rather than a particular individual. This public duty rule is based on the absence
of a duty to the particular individual, as contrasted to the duty owed to the general public. This doctrine does not insulate a public employee from all liability, as he or
she could still be found liable for a breach of ministerial duties in which an injured party had a “special, direct, and distinctive interest.” See, e.g., Southers v. City of
Farmington, 263 S.W.3d 603 (Mo. 2008). It is not an affirmative defense, but rather delineates the legal duty the defendant public employee owes the plaintiff. In
effect, the applicability of the public duty doctrine negates the duty element required to prove negligence, such that there can be no cause of action for injuries
sustained as the result of an alleged breach of public duty to the community as a whole. The public duty doctrine holds that a government agent cannot be civilly liable
– even for breach of a ministerial duty – if that duty is owed to the general public as opposed to a particular individual.
Federal Civil Rights Liability (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

The Federal Civil Rights statute is the basis by which a state or local government employee can assert a civil rights claim. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to
be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by
the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
The most common claims brought under § 1983 are for violation of constitutional rights, including:
• First Amendment rights of freedom of religion, speech, and press;
• Fourth Amendment protections against searches and seizures;
• Fifth Amendment protection from self-incrimination;
• Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment; and
• Fourteenth Amendment protections against deprivations of life, liberty, or property without due process.
Under § 1983, “any citizen” can be that person if they, while acting “under color of state law,” deprived the plaintiff of their constitutional rights, and the challenged
conduct caused a constitutional violation. The “color of law” element is established where a public employee acts pursuant to their office or in their official capacity.
Summary
The development of the immunity standard for local government and political subdivisions has evolved from attempts to create a precise, predictable semantic
definition into a flexible, if unpredictable, guideline. There is rarely an easy answer to whether a particular act on the part of local government is immune, which is why
these cases are litigated so frequently. For most states, if an act constitutes “governing” (high-level policy decision for which coordinate branches of government are
responsible), immunity will apply. This is most often referred to as the “discretionary function exception.” Where along the continuum of decision-making an act falls is
the stuff of lawsuits and legal advocacy. Most states have abandoned a simple formula and gone with the “planning-level function” (proprietary) acts being immune
and the “operational-level function” (ministerial) acts being subject to liability in tort. This is unfortunate for the drafters of charts like this one, because most states
have avoided a mechanical categorizing of government actions into “immune” or “not immune” columns. Generally, however, the terms “proprietary”, “ministerial”
and “planning level” usually go together and describe functions for which local government is liable and for which immunity has been waived. The terms
“governmental”, “discretionary” and “operational level” usually go together and describe functions for which local government is not liable and retains its immunity.
NOTE: This chart concerns itself with issues regarding governmental immunity granted to and liability of “political subdivisions” (i.e., local government entities created by the states to
help fulfill their obligations, including counties, cities, towns, villages, and special districts such as school districts, water districts, park districts, and airport districts). The immunity
granted to and liability of individual state governments and their employees are addressed in detail in our sister chart entitled “State Sovereign Immunity and Tort Liability In All 50
States” found HERE.
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
STATE LEGAL AUTHORITY NOTICE DEADLINES COMMENTS/EXCEPTIONS DAMAGE CAPS
ALLOWED
For years,
municipalities and
counties were immune Municipality $100,000 Per Person
to tort liability in the In 1984, Congress enacted the Local $300,000 Per Occurrence
Municipality City/town liability limited $100,000 Prop. Damage
exercise of to neglect of employees. Government Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C.
governmental Sworn statement/claim must be Employee only liable for §§ 34-36 (1984)), which eliminates Ala. Code §§ 11-93-1
(immune), as opposed filed with clerk within six (6) intentional act. Ala. Code §certain damage suits under the through 11-93-3.
to proprietary (not months, detailing manner of 11-47-190. Clayton Act: treble damage claims by Association of County
immune) functions. injury, damages, etc. Ala. Code § “persons,” single damage claims by Commissions of Alabama
Hilliard v. City of 11-47-23. A municipality has duty to the U.S., and treble damage claims
maintain sidewalks in safe by States. Protection against such established a self-
ALABAMA Huntsville, 585 So.2d County insurance fund for local
889 (Ala. 1991). condition and is liable for damage suits extends to local
Itemized, verified claim must be negligent failure to do so, governments. government liability
That changed in 1975. filed with Commission within 12 Johnson v. City of Opelika, insurance. Ala. Code §§
Local government months and must be acted on 71 So.2d 793 (Ala. 1954). Undecided whether a governmental 11-30-1, et seq.
entities can now be within 90 days prior to suit or is employee can be sued in his Limits apply to municipal
sued without regard to County individual capacity for actions done
considered disallowed. Ala. Code or county employees sued
former governmental- § 11-12-8. County can be sued in any on behalf of his employer. Suttles v. in individual capacities.
proprietary distinctions. court. Ala. Code §§ 6-5-20, Roy, 75 So.3d 90 (Ala. 2010). Suttles v. Roy, 75 So.3d 90
Jackson v. City of 11-2-1. (Ala. 2010).
Florence, 320 So.2d 68
(Ala. 1975).
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
Section 09.65.070 does not
shield municipalities from Discretionary Function Official
“operational negligence.” Immunity
Municipality is liable for
Municipality or its employees may
negligently performing
No Notice Requirements not be sued if claim is based on
particular operations to
In Johnson v. City of Fairbanks, performance/failure to perform
implement the broad
Actions, Immunities, 583 P.2d 181 (Alaska 1978), the discretionary function, even if the
policy decision (e.g.,
Defenses, and Duties. court announced notice of claims discretion is abused. Alaska Stat. §
operating motor vehicle or
provisions in city charters 09.65.070(d)(2).
Qualified Immunity negligent damage to storm
(Fairbanks city charter required or sewer). City of Seward v. Discretionary acts are acts “that
ALASKA No action can be 120 days’ notice) are impliedly require personal deliberation, No Damage Caps
maintained against a prohibited because they impede Afognak Logging, 31 P.3d
780 (Alaska 2001). decision, and judgment.” Planning
municipality, unless implementation of statutes which functions (immune). Operational
exception. Alaska Stat. seek to further a specific “Planning decision”
functions (not immune). Samaniego
§ 09.65.070(a). involves policy formulation
statewide policy with reference v. City of Kodiak, 2 P.3d 78 (Alaska
(immune). “Operational
to the time within which suits 2000).
decision” involves policy
may be filed. Under the Planning/Operational Test
execution or
implementation (not for Discretionary Function Immunity,
immune). Regner v. N. Star liability is the rule, immunity is the
Volunteer Fire Dep’t, Inc., exception.
323 P.3d 16 (Alaska 2014).
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
Actions Against Public
Entities or Public
Employees Act.
Liability determined by
Public entities are All actions against public entities
nature of act performed. None
granted absolute or public employees shall be Absolute immunity granted for (1)
brought within one (1) year after Policymaking vs. Judicial/Legislative functions; and (2) No law shall limit the
immunity for the
the cause of action. A.R.S. § 12- Operational Administrative functions involving amount of damages to be
exercise of a judicial,
legislative, or 821. Operational acts concern government policy. A.R.S. § 12- recovered for causing the
ARIZONA routine, everyday matters 820.01(A) (No Easy Test). death or injury of any
discretionary function. Claims against the State shall be
A.R.S. § 12-820.01 filled within 180 days after the not involving broad policy Unless there is gross negligence, person. Ariz. Const. Art. II,
(1984). action occurs. A.R.S. § 12-821.01. factors. Policymaking acts qualified immunity granted for § 31. No punitive
involve whether one actions listed in § 12-820.02(A). damages against the
“Public entity” means Deemed denied if no response State. A.R.S. § 12-820.04.
general course of action
the state or any within 60 days.
over another.
political subdivision of
the state. A.R.S. § 12-
820(7).
Liability of State and All political subdivisions Ark. Code § 21-9-301 extends
Local Governments. must carry liability immunity only for acts of negligence,
Legislature abolished insurance on their motor but not for intentional torts. A failure
“governmental” vs. vehicles. Ark. Code § 21-9- to correct that negligence may be No Punitive Damages
“proprietary” 303(a). construed as intentional. Robinson v.
Mosier v. Robinson, 722 F.
distinction. Ark. Code City of Ashdown, 783 S.W.2d 53 (Ark.
Direct action against 1990). Supp. 555 (W.D. Ark.
§§ 21-9-301 through municipal insurer allowed. 1989).
21-9-303 (1969). Little Rock Port Auth. v. Unclear who has burden of proving Municipal auto insurance
Qualified Immunity McCain, 752 S.W.2d 44 liability insurance. Helena-West must be at least $25,000
None (Ark. 1988). Helena School Dist. v. Monday, 204
ARKANSAS Municipal governments per person, $50,000 per
S.W.3d 514 (Ark. 2005).
and political Each county, municipal occurrence, and $25,000
subdivisions immune corporation, school No recovery for plaintiff covered property damage. Ark.
except to extent district, special under workers’ compensation. Helms Code § 21-9-303.
covered by liability improvement district, or v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. If no insurance, city is
insurance. any other political Co., 664 S.W.2d 870 (Ark. 1984). self-insurer. Ark. Code §
Legislative Immunity subdivision is authorized to 21-9-301.
Massongill v. Cty. of provide for hearing and
Scott, 991 S.W.2d 105 settling tort claims against
(Ark. 1999). it. Ark. Code § 21-9-302.
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
California Tort Claims
Act. A public entity includes
city, county or political
Public entity liable if
Personal injury/property claim subdivision. Cal. Gov’t
the act or omission
within six (6) months after accrual Code § 811.2.
would, apart from this A public employee is not liable for an
section, have given rise of the cause of action. All other Public entity is liable for injury resulting from his act or
to a cause of action claims shall be presented within injuries proximately caused omission where the act or omission
against that employee. one (1) year. Cal. Gov’t Code § by their employee’s acts or was the result of a discretionary act.
Cal. Gov’t Code § 815.2 911.2. omissions except when Cal. Gov’t Code § 820.2.
that employee is immune None
Numerous immunities Board must respond within 45 Public entities not liable for injuries
days. Then six (6) months to file from liability. Cal. Gov’t No punitive damages
CALIFORNIA provided. Cal. Gov’t caused by misrepresentation. Cal.
suit. Code § 815.2. against the State. Cal.
Code §§ 815 - 996.6 Gov’t Code § 818.8.
(1963). A public entity is liable for Gov’t Code § 818.
“Substantial compliance” may be Public entities are not liable for an
found even if deficiencies. death or injury proximately
A public entity may sue injury caused by adopting or failing
caused by a negligent or
and be sued. Cal. Gov’t See Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 910 and to adopt an enactment or by failing
wrongful act or omission in
Code § 945. 915 for claim filing requirements. to enforce any law. Cal. Gov’t Code §
the operation of any motor
Public employee liable See §§ 911.4 to 912.2 re: leave to 818.2.
vehicle by a public
for injury to the same file late claims. employee acting within the
extent as a private scope of his employment.
person. Cal. Gov’t Code Cal. Veh. Code § 17001.
§ 815.
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
A public entity includes
city, county, or political
subdivision. Colo. Rev.
Stat. § 24-10-103.
Immunity is waived for
Colorado contract actions, but not
Governmental torts. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-
Immunity Act (CGIA). 10-101. Immunity is waived for the following:
Claims against public entity must
A public entity is Public entity immune from • Operation of motor vehicle, except
immune from liability in be filed within 182 days of the
tort liability. Colo. Rev. emergency vehicle.
all tort claims for injury injury. C.R.S. § 24-10-109(1). $350,000 per person;
Stat. § 24-10-106. • Dangerous condition of building. $900,000 per occurrence,
except as otherwise File with Atty General.
The CGIA (C.R.S. §§ 24-10- • Dangerous condition of street. but no person may
COLORADO provided. File suit after denial or 90 days 105 and 24-10-106(1)) recover more than
Immunity is waived has passed. C.R.S. § 24-10-109(6). • Operation/maintenance of public
permits negligence suits $350,000. C.R.S. § 24-10-
under certain water facility, gas facility,
Use Statute of Limitation for that against the State’s political 114.
circumstances and sanitation facility, electrical facility,
type of action. C.R.S. § 24-10- subdivisions, including
exceptions to that power facility, swimming facility.
109(5). actions against Denver
waiver are provided. Water if it was negligent C.R.S. § 24-10-106.
C.R.S. §§ 24-10-101 – and such negligence arose
120 (1971). from the “operation and
maintenance” of “a public
water facility.” Great
Northern Ins. Co. v. Denver
Water, 2020 WL 6680360
(D. Colo. 2020).
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
Municipalities generally
are liable for damages to
Liability of Political persons or property
Subdivisions. caused by:
C.G.S.A. § 52-557n. (1) Negligent acts by
(codified qualified employees within the No liability for acts which require the
immunity established scope of their employment exercise of judgment or discretion as
by common law). Written notice must be filed with or official duties; an official function of authority
granted by law. C.G.S.A. § 52-
Connecticut in minority the clerk of such municipality (2) Negligence in operation
557n(a)(2).
of states that still make within six (6) months after such of enterprise for “special
distinction between cause of action has accrued. corporate benefit or Other statutory exceptions covering
governmental acts Statute of Limitation: An action pecuniary profit” (e.g., particular activities or conditions are
(qualified immunity against municipality must be water supply, sewer, set forth in C.G.S.A. § 52-557n(b).
from discretionary acts commenced within two (2) years municipal parking garage, No immunity when performing
requiring judgment or after the cause of action. C.G.S.A. or golf course); and following governmental functions:
discretion) and § 7-101a(d). (3) Creation or(1) maintenance of a park system; None
CONNECTICUT
proprietary functions Claims for injuries resulting from participation in the(2) construction of storm water
(no immunity for defective highways, sidewalks, creation of a nuisance. sewers (a governmental function
ministerial acts roads, or bridges must be brought C.G.S.A. § 52-557n(a)(1). because it is a duty imposed by the
performed in a within two (2) years and notice
However, this liability is state on municipalities to maintain
prescribed manner within ninety (90) days. C.G.S.A.
significantly limited by highways within its limits);
without judgment or §§ 13a-149, 13a-144. Section 13a- (3) use of municipal property as a
several exceptions.
discretion). 149 has savings clause that
Suits can be brought public park; and
Exceptions to qualified forgives inaccuracy in notice if no
intent to mislead. against state or (4) traditional governmental
immunity: functions such as the operation of
municipality for defective
(1) failure to act leads or poorly maintained roads jails, public libraries, and city garbage
to imminent harm; and bridges. C.G.S.A. § services.
(2) statute provides for 13a-149.
cause of action; and
For additional liability
(3) intentional act.
statutes, see C.G.S.A. §§
13a-144 to 13a-153e.
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
Counties, municipalities,
and political subdivisions
retain their governmental
immunity with three No immunity when performing
Any municipality may enact a governmental function:
statutory exceptions.
notice requirement by ordinance
Depends on whether acts (1) Ownership, maintenance, or use $300,000 per occurrence.
provided it is no longer than one
Delaware County and are discretionary or of motor vehicle; If municipality purchases
(1) year. 10 Del. Code § 4013.
Municipal Tort Claims ministerial. Discretionary (2) Liability for the construction, liability insurance in
DELAWARE Act. Must give notice of actions
acts are subject to operation, or maintenance of any excess of $300,000, then
against City of Wilmington within
10 Del. Code § 4013. immunity; ministerial acts public building; and that is the limit. 10 Del.
one (1) year of date cause of
can be subject to liability (3) Liability for a discharge of toxic Code § 4013.
action accrued. 10 Del. Code §
under one of the three substances.
8124.
exceptions. The distinction 10 Del. Code § 4012.
is always one of degree.
Sussex County v. Morris,
610 A.2d 1354 (Del. 1992).
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
Mayor can settle claims
and suits in his discretion
when:
(1) Arises out of
ownership, maintenance, Sovereign immunity for discretionary
or use of motor vehicle acts.
(gross negligence if No sovereign immunity for
emergency vehicle); or ministerial acts. Powell v. District of
Claims Against District. Notice of claim to the Mayor of
(2) Liability for the Columbia, 602 A.2d 1123 (D.C. 1992).
The Mayor of D.C. is the D.C. within six (6) months.
construction, operation, or The test for discretionary function is
empowered to settle, in Must include approximate time,
DISTRICT OF maintenance of any public whether it poses a threat to the
his discretion, claims place, cause and circumstances of None
COLUMBIA building; or quality and efficiency of government
against D.C. D.C. Code § the injury or damage.
(3) Liability for a discharge if liability is imposed. Shifrin v.
2-401 through § 2-416 Police report is sufficient notice. of toxic substances. Wilson, 412 F. Supp. 1282 (D. D.C.
(1929). D.C. Code § 12-309.
D.C. Code § 2-412. 1976).
District may be liable for Pothole accidents, fallen trees,
negligence in the damage caused by D.C. government,
performance of a its property or its employees.
proprietary function such
as maintenance of a sewer
system. D.C. v. Billingsley,
667 A.2d 837 (D.C. 1995).
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
Two Exceptions To Immunity:
A. Discretionary Government Act.
(1) Does act involve governmental
Florida’s Sovereign Four categories of public
Notice of claim must be given policy, program, or objective? $200,000 per person.
Immunity Statute. duty doctrine acts:
within three (3) years (two (2) (2) Is act essential to accomplish that
Government entities (1) Legislative, permitting, $300,000 per occurrence.
years for wrongful death and six policy, program, or objective?
(including counties and licensing: Immune. Limit may be increased if
(6) months after settlement for (3) Does act require exercise of
municipalities) liable for (2) Law enforcement. municipality has liability
contribution claims). F.S.A. § policy evaluation, judgment, and
damages resulting from Immune. limits in excess of this.
768.28(14). expertise?
FLORIDA negligent acts of public (3) Capital improvement/ Judgment in excess of
(4) Does the government agency
employees in the scope File suit after denial or after six property control: Liability statutory limits
possess the legal authority and duty
of their employment, if (6) months. F.S.A. § 768.28(6)(d). of private person. recoverable only if
to do the activity?
a private person would Statute of Limitations: Suit must (4) Professional, specially authorized by
educational, and general If these questions can be answered
be liable under similar be filed within four (4) years after legislature.
services: Duty of care. “yes”, the government act is
circumstances. F.S.A. § claim accrues. F.S.A. § 768.28(14). F.S.A. § 768.28(5).
“discretionary.”
768.28(1) (1973). F.S.A. § 768.28.
B. Public Duty Doctrine.
See CLAIMS/ACTIONS ALLOWED
Column.
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
(1) Immunity for
governmental acts
(decision to erect traffic
sign, construction and
Notice of Claim must be
maintenance of sewer
presented within six (6) months
system, operation of police
to governing authority of
Liability of Municipal and fire).
municipality (12 months for
Corporations For Acts (2) Immunity for Municipality waives immunity by the
county).
or Omissions. discretionary acts unless if purchase of liability insurance. Motor Vehicles.
Action on the notice of claim malice intent (act not O.C.G.A. § 36-33-1. Owens v. City of
O.C.G.A. §§ 36-33-1 to $500,000 Per Person
must be taken by the municipality required by statute to Greenville, 722 S.E.2d 755 (Ga.
36-33-6 $700,000 Per Occurrence
within 30 days. The running of perform, decision not to 2012); O.C.G.A. §§ 33-24-51, 36-92-
GEORGIA In absence of liability the statute of limitations is $50,000 Property Damage
inspect sidewalk, police 2, and 36-33-1.
insurance, municipality suspended during the time that O.C.G.A. § 36-92-2.
pursuit). O.C.G.A. § 36-33- Immunity waived for operation of
(city, town, or village) is the demand for payment is 2. motor vehicles to the greater of No Punitive Damages
immune from liability in pending before such authorities (3) Liability for ministerial policy limits or statutory limits. O.C.G.A. § 36-92-4.
all tort claims for injury without action on their part. acts (corporate gain or O.C.G.A. §§ 33-24-51 and 36-92-1.
except as otherwise O.C.G.A. § 36-33-5. profit, electric power
provided.
Jurisdiction is in state or superior supply, buses, park,
court where local government maintaining streets
entity resides. O.C.G.A. § 36-92-4. negligence in the
execution of plans or
specifications, nuisance).
O.C.G.A. § 36-33-1.
Claims against cities
and counties not No public entity or public employee
governed by Hawaii City and County subject to
shall be liable for injury or damage
State Tort Liability Act. the state's tort laws in the
sustained when using a public
same manner as any other
Local municipalities Notice of Claim within two (2) private tortfeasor.
skateboard park, unless injury or
None
HAWAII
have no sovereign years. Haw. Stat. § 46-72. Kaczmarczyk v. City and
damage caused by a condition
immunity to waive. resulting from failure to maintain or
County of Honolulu, 656
Kahale v. City and repair the skateboard park. Haw.
P.2d 89 (Haw. 1982).
County of Honolulu, 90 Stat. § 46-72.5.
P.3d 233 (Haw. 2004).
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
A governmental entity will
“Political subdivision” not
be held liable for the Idaho’s “political subdivisions” and
Idaho Tort Claims Act. liable for damages from a
negligence of theirtheir employees while acting within
Every “governmental single occurrence
employees while driving a the scope of their employment and
entity” (including Notice of Claim against “political exceeding $500,000. This
motor vehicle as long as without malice shall not be liable for:
“political subdivisions” subdivision” must be filed with limit doesn’t apply if
the employee was driving (1) An act or omission in the
such as counties, cities, the clerk or secretary within 180 political subdivision has
while in the scope of theirexecution of a statute or a
municipal corporations, days and action must commence purchased liability
employment and nodiscretionary duty;
school districts, etc.) is within two (2) years. Idaho Code insurance in excess or if
IDAHO exceptions apply. Teurlings(2) Any claim arising out of assault,
liable for its employees’ §§ 6-909 and 6-911. the action is caused by
v. Larson, 156 Idaho 65, battery, misrepresentation, false
negligent acts within For county, suit must be filed willful or reckless
320 P.3d 1224 (2014). imprisonment; and
the scope of within six (6) months after first conduct. Idaho Code § 6-
“Governmental entity” (3) Arises out of the collection of any 926.
employment to the rejection of claim. Idaho Code §§
means and includes the tax or fee.
same extent a private 5-221. No punitive damages
state and political See Idaho Code § 6-904; § 6-904 (a);
person would be. Idaho against “political
subdivisions as herein and § 6-904 (b) for other specific
Code § 6-903 (1976). subdivision.” Idaho Code
defined. Idaho Code § 6- exceptions.
§ 6-918.
903(2).
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
Local Governmental
and Governmental
Employees Tort
Immunity Act. Local government liable if
there is a duty, except for: Discretionary Act Immunity.
Lists exceptions to
• Adopt or fail to adopt Discretionary Act. Municipality
liability of local
or enforce law. § 2-103. immune from liability for
governments and their
employees, including • Administration of discretionary acts. They involve
licenses. § 2-104. personal deliberation and judgment.
legislative or
discretionary functions. • Negligent inspection of Ministerial Act. Municipality not
745 I.L.C.S. § 10/2-101, property. § 2-105. immune for acts which a person
et seq. • Unsafe conditions of performs on a given state of facts in
property with notice. § a prescribed manner, in obedience
The Act does not
3-106. to legal authority and without
impose duties but,
• Failure to supervise reference to discretion of the
instead, only confers
activity on public propriety of the act.
immunities and
Suit against local entity and/or property. § 3-108. Burden on government to prove.
defenses. Kirschbaum v.
public employee must be filed • Hazardous recreation Case by case basis. Strictly construed
Village of Homer Glen,
within one (1) year of date cause activity. § 3-109. against government. §§ 2-109 and 2- No punitive damages
848 N.E.2d 1052 (Ill.
App. 2006). of action accrued. 745 I.L.C.S. § • Absolute immunity for 201; Gutstein v. City of Evanston, 929 (unless employee sued in
10/8-101(a). discretionary acts as N.E.2d 680 (Ill. App. 2010). personal capacity). 745
Public Duty Rule opposed to ministerial
Abolished Suit against local entity for Two-prong test: I.L.C.S. § 10/2-102.
ILLINOIS acts. § 2-201.
Illinois municipalities patient care must be brought • Ministerial act is merely (1) Employee’s Position: Must Purchase of liability
used to be able to claim within two (2) years after date on execution of set task, determine policy and exercise insurance does not waive
this defense, which which claimant knew or should which law imposes. discretion. immunity. 745 I.L.C.S. §
states that is no have known of injury, but in no (2) Employee’s Act: Does claim 10/9-103(c).
Nothing remains for
common law duty to event longer than four (4) years. judgment or discretion. involve “discretionary policy
the general public for a 745 I.L.C.S. § 10/8-101(b). Must point to determination”?
municipality’s failure to act/omission. Collins v. Bartlett Park Dist., 997
enforce an ordinance or Duty to maintain property N.E.2d 821 (Ill. App. 2013).
building code. (stop signs) in safe No duty to install traffic signs or
However, the Illinois condition. Bubb v. streetlights. Once decided, however,
Supreme Court Springfield Sch. Dist. 186, liable if not maintained. Parsons v.
abolished the Public 657 N.E.2d 887 (Ill. App. Carbondale Township, 577 N.E.2d
Duty Rule in 2016 in 1995). Must be actual or 779 (Ill. App. 1991).
Coleman v. E. Joliet Fire constructive notice of Operation of a sewage system is
Prot. Dist., 46 N.E.3d dangerous condition in subject to statutory and regulatory
741 (Ill. 2016). This is sufficient time to remedy. guidelines and is ministerial. Trtanj v.
retrospective, so Mostafa v. City of Hickory City of Granite City, 884 N.E.2d 741,
parties
WORK PRODUCT OF can look back
MATTHIESEN, to
WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C. Page
Hills,17
677 N.E.2d 1312 (Ill. Last Updated 2/14/22
750 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008).
claims that were not App. 1997).
recoverable in 2016
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
There are several exceptions to
Indiana Tort Claims waiver of immunity including:
Act.
(1) discretionary functions (involve
“Governmental entity”
The defense of sovereign discretion to determine whether or
under ITCA includes
immunity is not available not to perform act, and if so, in what
“political subdivisions”
to a political subdivision particular way);
which in turn includes
for the negligent operation (2) the adoption and enforcement of
county, township, city, No punitive damages
of its vehicles. State v. or failure to adopt and enforce a law;
town, etc. I.C. § 34-6-2- Notice of a claim against a against the State. I.C. §
Turner, 286 N.E.2d and
110; I.C. § 34-6-2-49. political subdivision must be filed 34-13-3-4.
697(1972); 3A Ind. Law (3) the act or omission of anyone
Political subdivision with: Encyc. Automobiles and other than the governmental entity Indiana shall not be liable
liable for tortious (1) Governing body of that Motor Vehicles § 123. or their employee. for more than $300,000
conduct or conduct of political subdivision; or to a single claimant (if
“Public duty doctrine” See I.C. § 34-13-3-3 for more
their employees acting before 1/1/06) or
INDIANA (2) Indiana political subdivision means no liability on fire exceptions.
within the scope of $500,000 (if after 1/1/06
risk mgmt. commission created department if duty to Early approach was to distinguish
employment, unless and before 1/1/08) or
under § 27-1-29. plaintiff is not different actions as either ministerial or
the conduct is within an $700,000 (if after 1/1/08)
from duty to other citizens discretionary, the former not
immunity granted by Must file within 180 days after and for a single
and its efforts are made in immune.
statute. I.C. § 34-13-3-3 the loss occurs. I.C. § 34-13-3- occurrence, liability shall
8(a). response to general duty
(1973). Today, “planning/operational test” is not exceed $5,000,000.
to protect safety and
Water utility is not used. Immunity only if function “can I.C. § 34-13-3-4.
welfare of public. City of
“political subdivision” be properly characterized as policy
Hammond v. Cataldi, 449
for immunity purposes. decisions that have resulted from a
N.E.2d 1184 (Ind. App.
Harrison v. Veolia conscious balancing of risks and
1983).
Water Indianapolis, benefits and/or weighing of
LLC, 929 N.E.2d 247 priorities.” Peavler v. Bd. of Comm’rs
(Ind. App. 2010). of Monroe Cty., 528 N.E.2d 40 (Ind.
1988).
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
Exceptions to liability:
• Claim covered by work comp;
• Police acting with care;
• Failure to discover latent defect;
• Negligent design of public
improvement;
• Negligent design of recreational
Presumption of Liability. facility; and
Tort Liability of • “Discretionary” function: 2-step
Graber v. City of Ankney,
Governmental test used rather than planning/
656 N.W.2d 157 (2003).
Subdivisions. operational test.
Governmental subdivision
I.C.A. § 670.1. (1) Whether the action involved a
must defend its employees No Punitive Damages
Municipality liable for An action must be brought within and indemnify them. I.C.A.
matter of choice by employee;
IOWA torts in course and two (2) years of the damage or § 670.8. and I.C.A. § 670.4.
scope whether action injury. I.C.A. § 670.5. (2) Judgment call is kind the No Damage Caps
governmental or General rule in examining discretionary function was
proprietary, except as municipal immunity is designed to shield.
set forth in I.C.A. § liability; immunity is the I.C.A. § 670.14.
670.4. exception. I.C.A. §§ 670.2,
Distinction is between judgment that
670.4, Subd. 3.
embodies a professional assessment
undertaken pursuant to a policy of
settled priorities and a fully
discretionary judgment that balances
incommensurable values in order to
establish those priorities. Graber v.
City of Ankeny, 656 N.W.2d 157
(Iowa 2003).
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
Kansas Tort Claims Act. No liability for:

K.S.A. §§ 75-6101 - 75- (1) legislative functions; Municipal liability shall
Notice of Claim must be filed with
6120 (1979). Governmental entities(2) judicial functions; not exceed $500,000 for
the clerk or governing body. Suit
shall be liable for damages (3) failure to enforce a law; claims arising out of a
Governmental entity can be filed after denial or 120
caused by a negligent act (4) failure to exercise or perform a single occurrence or
liable for negligence days. Plaintiff has 90 days after
or omission of any of its discretionary function or duty on the accident.
unless exception in Act. denied even if Statute of
employees while acting part of a governmental entity or A governmental entity or
KANSAS Liability is the rule, Limitations runs. K.S.A. § 12-
within the scope of employee. See K.S.A. § 75-6104 for its employees acting
immunity the 105b(d).
employment under circum- more exceptions. within the scope of
exception. “Substantial compliance” with stances where a private “Discretionary function” means more employment shall not be
“Governmental entity” essential elements is okay. Sleeth person, would be liable. than use of judgment. Must involve liable for punitive
includes state or v. Sedan City Hospital, 317 P.3d K.S.A. § 75-6103. element of policy formation. Clark v. damages. K.S.A. § 75-
municipality. 782 (Kan. 2014).
Thomas, 505 F. Supp.2d 884 (D. Kan. 6105.
K.S.A. § 75-6102(c). 2007).
Municipalities remain $200,000 Per Person
liable for acts of $350,000 Per Occurrence
employees carrying out No liability for:
Claims Against Local K.R.S. § 44-070.
“ministerial” duties.
Governments. Notice of a claim against city for (1) Claim covered by work comp; After a final judgment
defect in the condition of any This includes negligent (2) Collection of taxes;
Local governments local government may be
bridge, street, sidewalk, alley, or maintenance of (3) Judicial or legislative act; and
liable for negligence allowed to pay judgment
other public thorough fare must thoroughfares and (4) “Discretionary” act.
unless there is in periodic payments if
be provided to mayor, city clerk, designing and building
exception in Act. K.R.S. K.R.S. § 65.2003. the judgment was not
KENTUCKY or clerk of the board of aldermen storm drainage systems.
§§ 65.2001 to 65.2006 totally covered by
within ninety (90) days of K.R.S. § 65.2003; Com., The process of deciding to build a
(1988). insurance and funds
occurrence. K.R.S. § 44.110. Trans. Cabinet, Dept. of sewer system is a discretionary
“Local government” available are not
Highways v. Nash, 2006 function, while the actual building of
includes city, county, General Statutes of Limitations sufficient to cover the
WL 2382730 (Ky. App. the system is ministerial. City of
special district, etc. apply. Frankfort v. Byrns, 817 S.W.2d 462 judgment. K.R.S. §
2006).
K.R.S. § 65.2002. 65.2004.
Municipality must defend (Ky. App. 1991).
and indemnity employees.
K.R.S. § 65.2005.
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
Political subdivision will be
liable for proprietary
functions such as the
negligent operation of a
motor vehicle by an
employee or officer done
Louisiana within the scope of their
Governmental Claims employment. Fullilove v.
Act. U.S. Cas. Co. of N.Y., 129
So.2d 816 (La. App. 1961); No liability (qualified immunity) for Non-economic damages
La. R.S. §§ 13:5101- Suit must be brought in Louisiana La. Civ. Code. Art. 2317. policymaking or discretionary acts cap of $500,000 per
5113 (1975). State Court. La. R.S. § 13:5106. City liable if it fails to repair when such acts are within the scope person for personal injury
The State, a State The notice deadline for a suit a dangerous sidewalk of their lawful powers and duties or wrongful death. Does
agency, or a political against the State is the equal to condition in reasonable except for acts not reasonably not include property
subdivision shall not be the normal statute of limitations time after notice of related to governmental objectives damages, medical
immune from suit and for that type of claim. La. R.S. § condition. Haindel v. and acts which constitute criminal, expenses. La. R.S. §
LOUISIANA liability for injury to 13:5108. Sewerage & Water Board, fraudulent, or intentional 13:5106(B).
person or property. La. 115 So.2d 871 (La. App. misconduct. La. R.S. § 9:2798.1.
Service must be requested within Money for medical care
Const. Art. XII, § 10. 1959).
ninety (90) days. La. R.S. § No liability for damage caused by post-judgment placed in a
Louisiana 13:5107(D). Street/sidewalk condition of buildings or things reversionary trust which
Governmental Claims maintenance is a unless the political subdivision had goes back to the political
One (1) year statute of
Act applies to political governmental function and actual or constructive notice of subdivision if not used.
limitations. La. R.S. § 13:5108.
subdivisions (parishes, liability is the exception. defect. La. R.S. § 9:2800. La. R.S. § 13:5106(B)(3).
municipalities, special City must keep streets and
districts, sheriffs, etc.). sidewalks safe. To be
La. R.S. § 13:5102.B. liable, defect must be
dangerous or calculated to
cause injury and danger
must be anticipated from
defect. Carlisle v. Par. of E.
Baton Rouge, 114 So.2d 62
(La. App. 1959).
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
There are four exceptions
Maine Tort Claims Act. to governmental immunity.
A governmental entity is A governmental entity is not liable
M.R.S.A. Tit. 14, §§ for any claim which results from: $400,000 per single
liable for its negligent acts occurrence. M.R.S.A. Tit.
8101 – 8118 (1977). (1) legislative acts;
or omissions with regard 14, § 8105.
Except as otherwise to: (2) judicial acts; and
provided in the (3) discretionary acts (except if the act Except as otherwise
(1) ownership,
statutes, all involves operating a motor vehicle). provided, personal
maintenance or use of
governmental entities liability of a governmental
motor vehicle, aircraft, or See M.R.S.A. Tit. 14, § 8104-B for
are immune from suit employee shall be subject
Every claim against a similar equipment; more exceptions.
on any and all tort to a limit of $10,000 for
governmental entity or its (2) construction, cleaning Four-part test for discretionary act:
claims seeking recovery any such claims arising
employees is forever barred or repair of any highway,
of damages. If (1) Does it involve policy? out of a single
unless an action therein is begun sidewalk, parking area,
immunity is removed (2) Is it essential to the realization occurrence. M.R.S.A. Tit.
within two (2) years after the bridge, including street
MAINE by the Tort Claims Act, that policy? 14, § 8104-D.
cause of action accrues. M.R.S.A. signs, traffic lights, (3) Does act require basic policy
a claim for damages Tit. 14, § 8110. guardrails; No judgment against
must be brought evaluation, judgment, and expertise? governmental entity shall
Written notice shall be filed (3) discharge of pollutants; (4) Does municipality possess the
subject to the and include punitive damages.
within 180 days after any claim or lawful authority and duty to do or
limitations contained in (4) Public buildings/land: M.R.S.A. Tit. 14, § 8105.
cause. M.R.S.A. Tit. 14, § 8107. make the decision? Darling v.
the Act. M.R.S.A. Tit. construction, If governmental entity
14, § 8103. Augusta Mental Health Inst., 535
maintenance, ownership immune but covered by
A.2d 421 (Me. 1987).
“Governmental entity” or use of unimproved land, insurance, it is liable
political subdivisions. Governmental entity not liable for (immunity waived) up to
historic sites, or land,
“Political subdivision” any defect, lack of repair or lack of the limits of the insurance
buildings, structures or
includes any city, town, sufficient railing in any highway, coverage. M.R.S.A. Tit. 14,
facilities designed for use
or county. M.R.S.A. Tit. town way, sidewalk, parking area, § 8116.
by public in connection
14, § 8102(2)(3). etc. M.R.S.A. Tit. 14, § 8104-A(4).
with outdoor recreation.
M.R.S.A. Tit. 14, § 8104-A.
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
Employee must be sued
directly, not the
governmental entity.
Holloway-Johnson v. Beall,
Local Government Tort
A claimant may not institute an 103 A.3d 720 (Md. 2014), No immunity if act is:
Claims Act.
action against the State unless aff’d in part, rev’d in part, $400,000 Per Person
Md. Code Ann., Cts. & (1) Discretionary function; and
the claimant submits written 130 A.3d 406 (Md. 2016).
Jud. Proc. § 5-301, et (2) Without malice. $800,000 Per Occurrence.
notice of claim within one (1) Local government
seq. (Excluding Interest)
year. responsible for any Md. Code § 5-507; Thacker v. City of
MARYLAND Local government not judgment against Hyattsville, 762 A.2d 172 (Md. Ct. Md. Code § 5-303.
immune to tort claims, Notice given to the corporate App. 2000), cert. denied, 768 A.2d 55
authorities of the local employee. If motor The State and its officers
unless exception set vehicle, defense only for (2001). and units are not liable
forth in statute government.
damages in excess of Employee may not sue fellow for punitive damages.
(“indirect statutory “Actual notice” may be sufficient. insurance policy limits. Md. employee if covered under workers’ Md. Code § 5-303.
qualified immunity”). Md. Code State Gov’t § 5-304. Code § 5-303(b); § 5- compensation. Md. Code § 5-302(c).
Md. Code § 5-303. 307(b).
Liable for negligence in
operation of motor vehicle.
Md. Code § 5-507(a)(2).
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
Public premises owner
owes duty of reasonable
care to all persons lawfully
on premises. Doherty v.
Belmont, 485 N.E.2d 183 Public employer not liable for any
Massachusetts Tort Claim must be presented in (Mass. 1985). claim based upon an act or omission
Claims Act. writing to executive officer of the Public Duty Rule: The as follows: Liability of public
M.G.L.A. Ch. 258, § 2 to public employer within two (2) public duty doctrine is (1) in the execution of a statute; or employer may not exceed
§ 14 (1978). years after the date upon which considered when an (2) discretionary acts; or $100,000 for each
Public employers the cause of action arose and individual alleges that law (3) arising out of an intentional tort, plaintiff.
(county, city, town, denied. Failure to act in six (6) enforcement personnel or assault, libel, slander, or Public employer not liable
etc.) are liable for injury months is deemed denial. other government misrepresentation; or to levy or execution or for
to property or personal Exceptions: employees are liable for (4) negligent inspection of property. interest prior to judgment
MASSACHUSETTS injury caused by (1) Plaintiff led to believe that injuries due to a breach of See other exceptions at M.G.L.A. 258 or for punitive damages.
negligence of public presentment not an issue; a legal duty. Unless the § 10.
Claims against the
employee in course and (2) Actual notice. employee created or
Discretionary function two-step test: Massachusetts Bay
scope, in the same enhanced a risk or had a
M.G.L.A. Ch. 258 § 4. Transportation Authority
manner and to the special relationship with (1) Is there discretion as to what
are not subject to the
same extent as a
No civil action can be brought the plaintiff, there is no course of conduct to follow?
$100,000 limit.
private individual (tort
more than three (3) years after recovery because the duty (2) Is it the type of discretion for
and contract). M.G.L.A.
accrual. owed by the government which the Act provides immunity? M.G.L.A. Ch. 258, § 2.
Ch. 258 § 2. M.G.L.A. 258 § 4. to its citizens is to the Fortenbacher v. Com., 888 N.E.2d
public generally and not to 377 (Mass. 2008).
citizens individually. Judson
v. Essex Agricultural and
Technical Institute, 635
N.E.2d 1172 (Mass. 1994).
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
Governmental Tort Governmental agency is

Liability Act. immune from tort liability
if engaged in the exercise
M.C.L.A. §§ 691.1401
or discharge of a Specific exceptions to immunity:
through 1419 (1986).
governmental function. A
(1) maintenance of public highways
Governmental agency State employee will be (knew or should have known of
(including political Notice of claim must be filed immune from tort liability defect), M.C.L.A. § 691.1402;
subdivisions) is immune within 120 days and served on if:
(2) negligent operation of a
if engaged in a the municipal employee (1) acting or reasonably government-owned motor vehicle,*
governmental function appointed to accept service of believes they are acting M.C.L.A. § 691.1405;
(activity expressly or complaints, (extended up to 180 within the scope of (3) public building defects, M.C.L.A. §
impliedly mandated or days if disability). Substantial employment; 691.1406; None
authorized by compliance is okay. (2) the governmental (4) performance of proprietary Punitive damages are
constitution, statute, M.C.L.A. § 600.1404. agency is engaged in the functions by government entities, generally not recoverable
local charter or exercise of a governmental
MICHIGAN All claims must be filed with the M.C.L.A. § 691.1413; unless authorized by
ordinance, or other function; or
Clerk of the Court of Claims (5) medical care or treatment statute. Casey v. Auto
law). (3) does not involve gross
within one year after such claim provided to a patient, M.C.L.A. § Owners Ins. Co., 729
M.C.L.A. §§ has accrued. negligence or an 691.1407(4); and N.W.2d 277 (2006).
691.1407(1). intentional act. (6) sewage disposal system events,
M.C.L.A. § 600.6431.
Governmental M.C.L.A. § 691.1407. M.C.L.A. § 691.1417.
Court of Claims has exclusive
immunity is to be Immunity does not apply *Municipal employee’s personal
jurisdiction over claims made
broadly construed, when engaged in a liability when driving his own vehicle
against the State.
unless a narrowly proprietary function (any or the municipality’s vehicle is
drawn exception M.C.L.A. § 600.6419.
activity which is conducted restricted to actions found to be
applies in a claim. primarily for the purpose “grossly negligent.” Alex v. Wildfong,
Nawrocki v Macomb of producing a pecuniary 594 N.W.2d 469 (Mich. 1999).
County Road Comm., profit for the
615 N.W.2d 702 (Mich. governmental agency).
2000). M.C.L.A. § 691.1413.
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
Tort Liability, Political $500,000 Per Person;

Subdivisions. Exceptions to liability: $1,500,000 Per
Liable for negligent design, Occurrence after July 1,
M.S.A. §§ 466.01, et (1) Accumulation ice and snow;
maintenance or operation 2009).
seq. unless public building;
of sewer system if no
Municipality liable for (2) Discretionary acts (arises out of a If claim arises out of the
evidence that City
torts of their Notice of Claim must be given planning-level/policy-making release of a hazardous
balanced the costs and
MINNESOTA employees acting within 180 days of loss. M.S.A. § decision); substance, then 2x the
benefits of upgrading
within scope of 466.05. (3) Parks and recreation areas; applicable limits apply.
system. Nordlie v. City of
employment, (4) Beach of pool equipment; and
Maple Lake, 2006 WL No punitive damages. If
regardless whether the (5) Any loss other than property
923649 (Minn. App. 2006) liability insurance, limits
action is governmental damage or personal injury/death. of insurance are the
(unpublished).
or proprietary. M.S.A. § M.S.A. § 466.03. maximum. M.S.A. §
466.02. 466.04.
Governmental entity and its
employees preserve their immunity
for claims caused by:
The immunity of
(1) a legislative or judicial action or
governmental entity from
inaction; The State’s liability shall
Notice of claim must be filed with claims arising out of
Mississippi Tort Claims (2) an act or omission of a State not exceed $500,000 for
chief executive officer of the ministerial acts is waived.
Act. employee exercising due care in the all claims arising out of a
governmental entity at least M.C.A. § 11-46-5.
M.C.A. §§ 11-46-1 execution of a statute or rule; single occurrence. The
ninety (90) days before instituting “Ministerial act” is one (3) police/fire protection (unless
through 11-46-23 suit. M.C.A. § 11-46-11(1). State will not pay punitive
(1984). which has been imposed reckless); and damages. M.C.A. § 11-46-
Suit must be commenced within by law and is required at a (4) discretionary function (official 15.
MISSISSIPPI “Governmental entity” one (1) year after the date of the time and in a manner or required to use judgment or
includes state and its tort. M.C.A. § 11-46-11(3). The limits of insurance
upon conditions which are discretion).
political subdivisions purchased by the entity
Bodily injury and property claims specifically designated, the
(county, municipality, See M.C.A. § 11-46-9 for other may be higher than those
must be brought within three (3) duty to perform under the
school district, etc.). exceptions. provided for in the
years after injury discovered. conditions specified not
M.C.A. § 11-46-1(g)(i). statute. M.C.A. § 11-46-
M.C.A. § 11-15-49. being dependent upon Immunity will not be granted to a
16.
judgment or discretion. State employee when they
M.C.A. § 11-46-9(1)(d). negligently operate a motor vehicle
outside of a discretionary function.
Mixon v. Mississippi Dep’t of Transp.,
183 So.3d 90 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015).
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
The immunity of public
Missouri Tort Claims entity is waived in these
Act. instances:
Mo. Stat. §§ 537.600 - Immunity is waived up to the extent Claims shall not exceed
(1) injuries resulting from
537.650 (1978). of the coverage provided in the $2,000,000 for claims
State employee’s negligent
Tort immunity not policy or self-insurance plan. arising out of a single
act or omission while
waived. Modified form operating a motor vehicle Mo. Stat. §§ 537.610 (political occurrence and shall not
of sovereign immunity. Claims against public entity must within the scope of subdivisions) and 71.185 exceed $300,000 for any
be brought to the Commissioner (municipalities). one person in a single
Public “entity” includes employment;
of Administration, for approval, accident or occurrence.
MISSOURI local government and (2) injuries caused by the No immunity for proprietary
its employees. within two (2) years after such dangerous condition of a functions (for benefit or profit of Public entity will not pay
Mo. Stat. § 537.602(2).
claim accrues. Mo. Stat. § 33.120. State-owned property; and municipality). Immunity only for punitive damages.
governmental functions (for Mo. Stat. § 537.610.
Three immunities: Mo. Stat. § 537.600. (these
common good). Political subdivision may
(1) Sovereign immunity are absolute waivers).
Construction and maintenance of purchase liability
(2) Official Immunity (3) Contract claims.
sewers is a proprietary function. insurance.
(3) Public Duty Kunzie v. City of Olivette,
Doctrine. 184 S.W.3d 570 (Mo.
2006).
$750,000 Per Claim
$1.5 Million Per
Political subdivision is Occurrence
subject to liability for its
Montana Tort Claims torts and those of its Mont. Stat. § 2-9-108.
Claim must first be presented in
Act. employees acting within Political subdivision shall not be The State and other
writing to the clerk or secretary.
Mont. Stat. §§ 2-9-101 the scope of employment liable for certain legislative, judicial, governmental entities are
The Department must grant or
through 2-9-114 (1973). or duties whether arising and gubernatorial actions. immune from exemplary
deny the claim within 120 days.
MONTANA “Political subdivision” out of a governmental or Mont. Stat. §§ 2-9-111 through 2-9- and punitive damages.
Upon receipt of the claim, the proprietary function. Mont. Stat. § 2-9-105.
includes counties, 113.
statute of limitations is tolled for Mont. Stat. § 2-9-102.
cities, municipalities, See Mont. Stat. § 2-9-108 for other Insurer may agree by
120 days.
school districts, etc. No immunity for operating exceptions. written endorsement to
Mont. Stat. § 2-9-301. motor vehicle, aircraft, or provide coverage to the
Mont. Stat. § 2-9-101.
other transportation. governmental agency in
Mont. Stat. § 2-9-111. amounts in excess of the
statutory amount. Mont.
Stat. § 2-9-108.
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
Notice of claim must be filed
within one (1) year of accrual. Exceptions to liability:
Suit must be filed within two (2)
(1) discretionary function (official
years. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-919.
required to use judgment or
Must be filed with the clerk, discretion);
secretary, or other official whose (2) failure to inspect or negligent
duty it is to maintain the official inspection of property unless
Political Subdivisions records of the political reasonable notice;
Tort Claims Act subdivision, or the governing Political subdivisions liable (3) claim by employee covered by
(PSTCA). body of a political subdivision in same manner as private workers’ compensation;
may provide that such claims may individual (ministerial act – (4) malfunction or destruction of
Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 13- be filed with the duly constituted duty imposed by law). Neb. traffic sign unless not corrected
901 to 928 (1969). law department of such Rev. Stat. § 13-908. within reasonable time after notice;
Applies to counties, subdivision. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13- (5) snow or ice conditions caused by
Liable for operation of
cities, municipalities, 905. nature on highway;
motor vehicle. Neb. Rev. $1 Million Per Person
school districts, etc. Woodard v. City of Lincoln, 588 (6) highway repair unless notice;
Stat. § 13-910.
NEBRASKA Limited waiver of N.W.2d 831, 838 (Neb. 1999). and $5 Million Per Occurrence
Liable for sewer backup if
governmental Time to file suit extended six (6) (7) recreational activities unless Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-926.
city fails to take reasonable
immunity. months from date of mailing of gross negligence.
action to prevent backup.
PSTCA read in harmony claim determination or Desel v. City of Wood River, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-910.
with the State Tort withdrawal of claim if Statute of 614 N.W.2d 313 (Neb. Substantial compliance when notice
Claims Act. Kimminau v. Limitations would expire. 2000); Henderson v. City of supplies the requisite and sufficient
City of Hastings, 864 If no disposition of claim within Columbus, 811 N.W.2d notice. Chicago Lumber Co. v. School
N.W.2d 399 (Neb. six (6) months, claim can be 699, 712 (Neb. App. 2012). Dist. No. 71, 417 N.W.2d 757 (Neb.
2015). withdrawn, and suit filed. Neb. 1988). In order to substantially
Rev. Stat. § 13-919. comply with the requirements of
City can be estopped from § 13–919(1), notice must still be
claiming it received inadequate filed with an individual or office
notice from subrogated carrier. designated in the statute. Willis v.
Great N. Ins. Co. v. Transit Auth. City of Lincoln, 441 N.W.2d 846
of City of Omaha, 2021 WL (Neb. 1989).
1431862 (Neb. 2021).
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
State waives the immunity
of political subdivisions
and consents to have their No action may be brought against
liability determined in the political subdivision or its
accordance with the same employees which are based upon:
rules of law as are applied
(1) the performance of a
Nevada Tort Claims to civil actions against
discretionary act (involves element
Act. None natural persons, except as
of individual judgment or choice and Damages against political
A claim must be filed with the otherwise provided. N.R.S.
N.R.S. §§ 41.031 is based on considerations of social, subdivision may not
governing body of the local § 41.031.
through 41.0337 economic, or political policy); exceed the sum of
(1965). jurisdiction within two (2) years Decision to divert storm
(2) failure to inspect any building, $100,000, exclusive of
NEVADA after cause of action accrues. water into ditch involved
Includes “political structure, vehicle, street, public interest. The political
Filing a claim isn’t a condition individual judgment or
subdivisions” (counties, highway or other public work, to subdivision will not pay
precedent to bringing an action choice and was immune.
cities, school districts, determine any hazards, deficiencies punitive damages. N.R.S.
against political subdivision. Warner v. City of Reno, 367
etc.) or other matters, whether or not § 41.035.
N.R.S. § 41.036. P.3d 832 (Nev. 2010).
N.R.S. § 41.031. there is a duty to inspect; and
Operating motor vehicle is
(3) injury sustained from a public
not discretionary. Decision
building or public vehicle by a person
to install traffic sign is
who was engaged in any criminal act.
discretionary, but not duty
to maintain. Nevada Power N.R.S. §§ 41.032, 41.033, 41.0334.
Co. v. Clark Cty., 813 P.2d
477 (Nev. 1991).
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
General Grant of
Immunity. Exceptions to immunity:
No “governmental unit” “Governmental Unit” liable for
liable except as provided in damages arising out of ownership,
Chapter 507-B. N.H. Rev. occupation, maintenance or
Bodily Injury Actions Stat. § 507-B:5. operation of all motor vehicles, and
Against Governmental Although it doesn’t all premises.* N.H. Rev. Stat. § 507-
Units. address it, “discretionary B:2.
N.H. Rev. Stat. §§ 507- Notice of Claim must be filed function *No liability for snow, ice, or other
B:1 to 541-B:11. within sixty (60) days of discovery immunity:(discretionary vs. weather hazards on premises
$275,000 Per Person
of injury. ministerial) has been owned, occupied, maintained, or
NEW HAMPSHIRE Municipal and county $925,000 Per Occurrence
regularly applied by courts: operated, unless gross negligence.
common law immunity Suit must be filed within three (3)
• Decision to lay out N.H. Rev. Stat. § 507-B2-b. N.H. Rev. Stat. § 507-B:4.
abolished in Merrill v. years of injury or damage.
City of Manchester, 332 N.H. Rev. Stat. § 507-B:7. roads; “Governmental unit” means any
A.2d 378 (N.H. 1974) • Traffic control; and political subdivision. N.H. Rev. Stat. §
(liability same as that of • Setting road 507-B:1(I).
private corporation). maintenance. “Political subdivision” means any
Maryea v. Velardi, 135 village district, school district, town,
A.3d 121 (N.H. 2016). city, county or unincorporated place
Statute doesn’t completely in the state. N.H. Rev. Stat. § 541-
occupy the field of B:1(VI).
municipal immunity.
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
Limitations on liability:
New Jersey Tort Claims Public entity liable for:
Act. • A discretionary function (involves
• Condition of property if policy judgment or determining
N.J.S.A. §§ 59:1-1 A claim against a “public entity” No Dollar Caps
dangerous condition resources or when or whether to
through 59:12-3 (1972). for death or for injury or damage No subrogation allowed
and failure to take purchase equipment, construct or
to person or to property shall be against “a public entity or
“Public entity” includes action “palpably maintain facilities, hire personnel
presented not later than the 90th public employee.” N.J.S.A.
all counties, unreasonable.” N.J.S.A. or provide adequate services).
day after accrual of the cause of § 59:9-2(e).
municipalities, districts, § 59:2-3. N.J.S.A. § 59:2-3.
action.
and other political • Sewer back up if • Adopting or failing to adopt a law No recovery for pain and
subdivisions. N.J.S.A. § Six (6) months after notice has maintenance program or by failing to enforce any law. suffering, but limitation
59:1-3. been received, suit may be filed. was palpably on recovery unless
N.J.S.A. § 59:2-4.
NEW JERSEY Immunity waived. A Suit must be filed within two (2) unreasonable or permanent loss of bodily
• Failure to make an inspection, or
“public entity” is liable years after the date of accrual. negligence in negligent inspection of any function, permanent
for injury caused by an N.J.S.A § 59:8-8. performance. property. N.J.S.A. § 59:2-6. disfigurement, or
act or omission of a A suit for contribution or • Ministerial or • Crime, actual fraud, actual malice, dismemberment when
public employee in the indemnity against a public entity operational functions. or willful misconduct. N.J.S.A. § medical expenses are in
same manner and to by a defendant is included in • Negligent operation of 59:2-10. excess of $3,600.
the same extent as a these requirements. Jones v. motor vehicle. • Discretion in decision-making or Punitive damages cannot
private individual Morey’s Pier, Inc., 2017 WL Gruschow v. New Jersey prioritizing needs when faced be awarded. N.J.S.A. §
unless there is 3184454 (N.J. 2017). State Highway Dep’t, with budgetary issues. 59:9-2 (c) and (d).
exception in Act. 152 A.2d 150 (N.J. App.
See N.J.S.A. § 59:2-5 for other
N.J.S.A. § 59:2-2. 1959).
exceptions.
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
Exceptions to immunity:
(1) Operation or maintenance of any Liability shall not exceed:
motor vehicle, aircraft or watercraft. (1) $200,000 for damage
N.M.R.A. § 41-4-5. to or destruction of real
New Mexico Tort (2) Operation or maintenance of any property;
Claims Act. Immunity is not waived. building, public park, machinery,
Written notice must be provided (2) $300,000 for past and
N.M.R.A. §§ 41-4-1 to local public body within ninety Tort Claims Act shields equipment or furnishings. N.M.R.A. § future medical expenses;
through 41-4-30 (1976). (90) days after the occurrence. local public bodies and 41-4-6. (3) $400,000 for all
The NMTCA applies to N.M.R.A. § 41-4-16. their employees from (3) Operating certain public utilities damages other than real
NEW MEXICO all governmental liability for torts except and services such as gas, electric, property damage and
Action against local public body when immunity is water, waste collection or disposal,
entities and their must be brought within two (2) medical expenses; and
employees, including specifically waived. heating, and ground transportation. (4) total liability for a
years after occurrence. N.M.R.A. N.M.R.A. §§ 41-4-1 & 41-4- N.M.R.A. § 41-4-8.
“local public bodies” § 41-4-15. single occurrence shall
(city, county, etc.). 4. (4) Constructing and maintaining any not exceed $750,000.
N.M.R.A. § 41-4-2A. bridge, culvert, highway, roadway,
street, alley, sidewalk, or parking Local public body will not
area. N.M.R.A. § 41-4-8. pay punitive damages.
See N.M.R.A. §§ 41-4-4 through 41- N.M.R.A. § 41-4-19.

4-12 for other exceptions.
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
If the act is a discretionary
(decision based on policy)
there is immunity. Valdez
v. City of N.Y., 960 N.E.2d
356 (N.Y. 2011).
If act is proprietary (act
could be undertaken by a
private enterprise, such as If governmental act involved,
Written Notice of Claim must be property ownership, municipality is liable only if there
filed and served on the municipal operation of a motor was a special duty owed to plaintiff
New York Court of government agency, by personal vehicle, or providing as opposed to mere public duty
Claims Act. delivery, or registered or certified hospital services. there is (Public Duty Defense). Special duty
N.Y. Ct. Cl. Act §§ 8 – 12 mail within 90 days (6 months for liability). formed in three ways:
(1929). breach of contract claims) after Every county, municipality (1) Statute for class of persons;
the claim arises. It must be served (except NYC) is liable for (2) Assumption of duty toward
State waives immunity
on a person designated by law to the negligent operation of person (most common); and
and consents to being None.
receive summonses in Supreme a municipally owned (3) Assume direction and control in
sued in the same
Court actions or an attorney vehicle or other face of known safety violation. No punitive damages
manner as a private
representing the public transportation. N.Y. Gen. allowed. Wang v. N.Y.
NEW YORK person would, so long If ministerial act, plaintiff must still State Dep’t of Health, 933
corporation. N.Y. Ct. Cl. Act § 10. Mun. Law §§ 50-a, 50-b.
as requirements of the show a special duty existed. N.Y.S.2d 503 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.
Court of Claims Act are Specific requirements for filing However, emergency
claim. N.Y. Ct. Cl. Act § 11. McLean v. City of New York, 905 2011).
complied with. vehicle involved in
N.E.2d 1167 (N.Y. App. 2009) (duty
Parallel statute deals Court of Claims has exclusive “emergency operation”
trumps all else).
with Port Authority jurisdiction over claims against (pursuing violator of the
almost identically. N.Y. State but not city, county or law) with lights and sirens If governmental act and special duty
Unconsol. Law §§ 7101 town. on, is immune. N.Y. Veh. & exists, no immunity if act was
to 7112. Suit must be filed within one year Traf. § 1104. Authorized ministerial. If discretionary,
emergency vehicles, § government must actually have
and 90 days after incident. N.Y.
1104; Fuchs v City of New exercised its discretion to be
Gen. Mun. Law § 50-i.
York, 2017 WL 4202315 immune.
(Sup. Ct. 2017).
Municipality liable for
construction defects or
inadequate maintenance.
Briga v. Town of
Binghamton, 778 N.Y.S.2d
545 (3rd Dept. 2004).
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
Local government Immunity waived if liability
immune from insurance purchased, up to Cities with population over 500,000
governmental acts in limits of policy. (only Charlotte) can waive immunity
scope of employment, Per Person: No Cap
County: N.C.G.S.A. § 153A- and become subject to the NCTCA.
but not proprietary 435. Per Occurrence: $1
acts. Data Gen. Corp. v. None Proprietary Function: Not
Million
City of Durham, 545 Cities may adopt own notice Cities: N.C.G.S.A. § 160A- traditionally done by government;
NORTH 485. also performed by private sector; Punitive damages not
S.E.2d 243 (N.C. App. requirements. Miller v. City of allowed unless authorized
CAROLINA 2001). Risk pool considered don’t benefit public as whole, charge
Charlotte, 219 S.E.2d 62 (N.C. fee (e.g., golf course, sewer backup by statute. Jackson v.
Public Duty Doctrine: 1975). insurance.
due to poor maintenance). Hous. Auth. of City of High
When government If local government has Point, 341 S.E.2d 523
protecting public at immunity, but settles some Governmental Function: Performed
(N.C. 1986)
large – automatically claims but not others, may for public at large; discretionary.
immune. No special be liable under 42 U.S.C. § (e.g., decision to construct sewer )
relationship. 1983 (Dobrowolska Claim).
City liable for light and $250,000 Per Person

Political subdivision is power distribution but not No liability if: $1 Million Per Occurrence
liable (1) under for operation and (1) Execution of statute; N.D.C.C. § 32-12.1-03.
circumstances in which None maintenance of city water Liability insurance or self-
(2) Discretionary function (decision
the employee would be sewer system (where no insurance pool may be
making, matter of choice or
NORTH DAKOTA personally liable, or (2) Suit must be filed against political statutes, regulations, or obtained by political
judgment); and
caused by some subdivision within three (3) years. policies prescribing course subdivision to cover
condition or use of real N.D.C.C. § 32-12.1-10. of action for maintenance (3) Public duty (unless special
liability in excess of
or personal property. and operation). Olson v. relationship).
statutory limits. Statutory
N.D.C.C. § 32-12.1-03. City of Garrison, 539 N.D.C.C. § 32-12.1-03(3). limits then in applicable.
N.W.2d 663 (N.D. 1995). N.D.C.C. § 32-12.1-05.
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
Five Exceptions to
Immunity:
• Operating motor No subrogation claims.
vehicle; Damages reduced by
• Proprietary acts; other collateral source
recoveries received by the
• Repair of roads; Governmental Function: For
claimant. Ohio Rev. Code
• Defect of common good of all citizens. Police,
fire, regulation and maintenance of § 2744.05(B).
Political Subdivision grounds/bldg.;
• Liability under § roads, judicial, legislative functions. No limit on economic
Tort Liability Act.
2743.02; and Proprietary Function: Action damages (medical, lost
Ohio Rev. Code §§
• Failure of county to traditionally engaged in by private wages, etc.).
2744.01 to 3744.10. None erect and maintain sector (maintenance/operation of Non-economic damages
Political subdivision is Suit must be filed within two (2) guardrails under § hospital, public utility, sewer system, capped at $250,000.
OHIO immune from both years of accrual. parking lot).
5591.37. Non-catastrophic medical
governmental and
Ohio Rev. Code § 2744.04. Ohio Rev. Code § 2744.03 No liability under five exceptions if malpractice claims:
proprietary acts, unless
Decision re: upgrading defense exists under § 2744.02(B): $350,000 Per Person
exception in statute.
Ohio Rev. Code § sewer is governmental • Discretionary act (planning); $500,000 Per Occurrence
2744.03. function. No immunity for • Not in course and scope; Catastrophic medical
failure to repair sewer
system, but immunity if • Malicious/bad faith act. malpractice claims:
complaint requires design Ohio Rev. Code § 2744.03. $500,000 Per Person
or reconstruction of sewer. $1 Million Per Occurrence
Matter v. City of Athens, 21 Ohio Rev. Code §
N.E.3d 595 (Ohio 2014); 2744.05.
Coleman v. Portage, 975
N.E.2d 952 (Ohio 2012).
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
Oklahoma Thirty-seven (37) exceptions where

Governmental Tort State not liable for torts of State Property Claims: $25,000.
Claims Act. employees acting in scope of
Other Losses: $175,000
employment:
51 Okla. Stat. § 151 – per person. ($200,000 for
200 (1978). Notice of claim within one year State employee acting in (1) legislative functions; medical negligence). $1
after loss. 51 Okla. Stat. § 156(B). scope of employment is (2) discretionary acts such as policy million per occurrence. 51
51 Okla. Stat. § liable for loss unless falls decisions (limited). “Planning- Okla. Stat. § 154(A).
152.1(A) political Notice filed CMRRR with Risk
under exceptions (General operational” approach to
subdivisions are Management Administrator of No punitive damages.
Waiver of Immunity). 51 understanding the scope of this
immune whether the Office of Public Affairs. 51 Several liability only. 51
Okla. Stat. § 152.1(A). exception to liability;
OKLAHOMA performing Okla. Stat. § 156(C). Okla. Stat. § 154.
governmental or Liable for operation of (3) natural snow or ice conditions;
Suit may be filed once claim If insurance, policy terms
proprietary function. motor vehicles. However, (4) absence, condition, location or
denied (deemed denied if not govern rights and
liability limited to amount malfunction of traffic sign unless not
51 Okla. Stat. § 152.1(B) approved within 90 days). obligations of State. 51
of liability insurance corrected within reasonable time
waives immunity as Plaintiff has 180 days after 90-day purchased. 51 Okla. Stat. after notice; Okla. Stat. § 158.
provided in the Act. period to file. 51 Okla. Stat. § 157. §§ 157.1-158.2. (5) subrogation claim; and No subrogation claims
Same statutory (6) any loss to person covered by allowed against political
provisions apply to workers’ compensation. subdivision. 51 Okla. Stat.
political subdivisions as See 51 Okla. Stat. § 155 for more § 155(28).
to state. exceptions.
Personal Injury: $691,200
per person. $1,382,300
Exceptions to liability:
per occurrence.
Tort Actions Against Action must be commenced Oregon Tort Claims Act is (1) injury covered by workers’
Property damage:
Public Bodies (a/k/a within two (2) years. O.R.S. § limited (partial) waiver of compensation;
$113,400 per person.
sovereign immunity. (2) exercise of discretionary
Oregon Tort Claims 30.275(9). $566,900 per occurrence.
Act). Notice of claim to any member of Every public body subject function* or duty; and
O.R.S. §§ 30.271(4),
O.R.S. §§ 30.260 - the governing body of the public to liability for its (3) act under apparent authority of
30.272(4), 30.273(3)
OREGON
30.300 (1967). body within 180 days (one (1) employees’ and agents’ law.
(through 7/1/17).
torts committed within the O.R.S. § 30.265(6).
“Public body” includes year for death). Claims which are subject
scope of their *Discretionary function is policy-
cities, municipalities, No particular form for notice. employment, including making decision (policy judgment). to the OTCA are not
and other local public Actual notice may suffice. O.R.S. § operation of motor Negligent implementation of policy is subject to O.R.S. § 30.710,
bodies. 30.275. vehicles. O.R.S. § 30.275. setting limit of $500,000
not immune. No immunity if duty to
for non-economic
act.
damages in civil actions.
O.R.S. § 30.269(2).
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
Local Agency liable when:
• Operation of motor
vehicle;
Political Subdivision Notice of Intention to Make Claim • Care custody and
Tort Claims Act. against “Local Agency” must be control of personal
made within six months after property; No Limit Per Person
42 Pa. C. S. §§ 8541,
cause of action accrued. 42 Pa. C. • Care custody and $500,000 Per Occurrence
8542.
S. § 5522. control of real property; 42 Pa. C. S. § 8553.
Immunity not waived • Dangerous conditions
for local governmental No notice needed where Pain and suffering only
“dangerous condition” of real of trees, traffic signs,
entities (local agency), permitted for permanent
estate, highways, and sidewalks. lights or other traffic
unless exception in No subrogation claims against local loss of bodily function,
PENNSYLVANIA controls; permanent disfigurement
statute. 42 Pa. C. S. §§ Potholes require actual written agencies. 42 Pa. C. S. § 8533(d).
• Dangerous conditions or permanent
8541. notice and time to fix.
of facilities of steam, dismemberment where
“Local Agency” means a Actual or constructive notice sewer, water, gas or
okay. 42 Pa. C. S. § 5522(a)(3). medical expenses exceed
government unit other electric systems; the sum of $1,500. Walsh
than the No notice required for claim • Dangerous condition of v. City of Philadelphia,
Commonwealth arising from the “care, custody or streets; 585 A.2d 445 (Pa. 1991).
government. 42 Pa. C. control” of its real property. 42 • Dangerous conditions
S. § 8501. Pa. C. S. § 8542(b)(3). of sidewalks; and
• Care custody or control
of animals.
42 Pa. C. S. § 8542.
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
There are few conditions on the
Can sue for operation of State’s consent to suit. Marrapese v.
motor vehicle. Catone v. State, 500 F. Supp. 1207 (D. R.I.
Governmental Tort Medberry, 555 A.2d 328 1980).
Liability Act. (R.I. 1989). The public duty doctrine grants Damages may not exceed
Former distinction immunity to government entities $100,000. R.I.G.L. § 9-31-
R.I.G.L. § 9-31-1 (1970). Three (3) year statute of
between proprietary and and employees engaging in uniquely 3.
State and all political limitation for any action against governmental functions no governmental Limit not applicable if
(discretionary)
subdivisions are liable State. R.I.G.L. § 9-1-25. longer is either controlling functions involving policy decisions political subdivision was
RHODE ISLAND for all actions of tort in Notice of Claim must be given or of significant assistance or not ordinarily performed by engaged in a proprietary
the same manner as a within three (3) years from the in determining liability of private individuals. Two exceptions: function or has agreed to
private individual or date the cause of action accrues. municipality (except within (1) Special duty (i.e., proprietary acts indemnify the federal
corporation unless R.I.G.L. § 9-1-25. public duty doctrine). such as driving car, or removing snow government or any
exception in statute. O'Brien v. State, 555 A.2d from walkway); and agency. R.I.G.L. § 9-31-3.
R.I.G.L. § 9-31-1. 334 (R.I. 1989), holding
modified by Verity v. Danti, (2) Egregious conduct.
585 A.2d 65 (R.I. 1991). Bierman v. Shookster, 590 A.2d 402
(R.I. 1991).
Non-exclusive list of 40 exceptions to
the general waiver of political
South Carolina Tort Notice is not prerequisite to filing subdivision sovereign immunity,
Claims Act. suit. However, two (2) year $300,000 Per Person
including, among others:
S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78- statute of limitations; Three (3) $600,000 Per Occurrence
(1) legislative, judicial actions;
10, et seq. (1986). years if Notice of Claim filed. No Punitive Damages
(2) discretionary acts;
Limited waiver of S.C. Code § 15-78-110. Sovereign immunity
(3) natural snow or ice conditions; For claims against
sovereign immunity, waived (State liable) for all
Must wait 180 days after earlier (4) authorized entry on property; government doctors,
SOUTH CAROLINA subject to exceptions. torts unless one of 40
of (1) date claim filed; (2) claim (5) absence or condition of traffic dentists, etc.:
Political subdivision is listed exceptions to waiver
denied; or (3) rejection of sign or barrier unless given $1.2 million per
liable for torts to the of immunity.
settlement offer. reasonable notice to repair; occurrence and aggregate
same extent as private (6) claim against DOT allowed for
If claim procedure followed, must limit.
individual, subject to improper maintenance but not faulty
be filed within one (1) year. S.C. Code § 15-78-120.
limitations. S.C. Code § design; and
15-78-40. S.C. Code § 15-78-80.
(7) any judicial proceeding.
S.C. Code § 15-78-60.
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
Discretionary: Highway construction
and Maintenance; Allocating plows,
Remedies Against
resource and equipment for snow
Public Entities.
Written notice of claim must be removal.
S.D.C.L. §§ 21-32a-1 to filed within 180 days. Public entities liable for
Ministerial: Once it is determined
21-32a-3. ministerial acts. King v.
SOUTH DAKOTA Suit must be filed within one (1) that act should be performed, None
To extent of risk pool or Landguth, 726 N.W.2d 603
year. subsequent performance is
liability insurance (S.D. 2007).
S.D.C.L. §§ 21-32a-1 ministerial. (e.g., operating motor
purchased, sovereign vehicle).
immunity waived.
Masad v. Weber, 772 N.W.2d 144
(S.D. 2009).
Exceptions to immunity: Damages may not exceed

(1) Negligent operation of local government’s
Tennessee motor vehicles; Local government employees may be insurance coverage. Tenn.
Governmental Tort (2) Negligent construction individually liable. If government Code § 29-20-311.
Liability Act. or maintenance of streets, liable, employee is immune, unless Governmental entity
Tenn. Code § 29-20- alleys or sidewalks; intentional. Tenn. Code § 29-20- must purchase insurance
None
201, et seq. (1973). (3) Negligent construction 310(b)(c). with minimum limits of:
Action must be brought within or maintenance of public
TENNESSEE General immunity twelve (12) months. Tenn. Code § City responsible for keeping streets Personal Injury:
granted to counties, 29-20-305. improvements; and sidewalks in safe repair and is $300,000 Per Person
municipalities, and (4) Discretionary functions; liable for injuries caused by
and $600,000 Per Occurrence
other local negligence. Shepherd v. City of
(5) Failure to make or Chattanooga, 76 S.W.2d 322 (Tenn. Property Damage:
governmental agencies,
unless waived. negligent inspection. 1934). $100,000 per act or
Tenn. Code §§ 29-20-202 occurrence.
to 29-20-205. Tenn. Code § 29-20-403.
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
Immunity for governmental
functions (police, fire, health and
sanitation).
Three activities listed that are
considered governmental functions:
Governmental unit liable • police and fire;
for proprietary acts, • health and sanitation; and
including: • bridge/road maintenance and
• operation and construction.
Texas Tort Claims Act maintenance of a public This section doesn’t waive immunity.
(TTCA). utility; Bodily Injury/Death:
Formal, written notice no later Must look to § 101.021 to determine
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. • amusements owned if act is proprietary. Tex. Civ. Prac. & $250,000 Per Person
than six (6) months after day the
Code §§ 101.001–.109 and operated by the Rem. Code § 101.0215(b). $500,000 Occurrence
incident occurs, reasonably
(1969). municipality; and Damage to Property:
describing: Proprietary acts include construction
TTCA is a limited waiver • any activity that is
(1) the damage or injury claimed; and maintenance of streets, sanitary $100,000 Occurrence
of sovereign immunity abnormally dangerous
(2) the time and place of the or storm sewers. Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code
(qualified immunity) for or ultra-hazardous.
TEXAS incident; and There is NO waiver of immunity for § 101.023.
certain torts. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
(3) the incident. junior college or school districts, Can recover property
“Governmental unit” § 101.021 (non-exclusive
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. except as to motor vehicles. Tex. Civ. damage and personal
includes a political list).
§ 101.101(a). Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 101.023 and injury for motor vehicle
subdivision (city, Municipal liability exists 100.051.
“Actual notice” can substitute. only to extent immunity exception; but only
county, school district, There is a constitutional “taking”
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. personal injury for death
etc.). waived. Municipality liable
§ 101.101(c). when a governmental entity for condition or use of
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. for:
physically damages private property real/personal property.
Code §§ 101.001(3). • motor vehicle; in order to confer a public benefit,
• condition or use of under Article I, Section 17 of the
person/real property. Texas Constitution, if it (1) knows
See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. that a specific act is causing
Code Ann. § 101.021. identifiable harm; or (2) knows that
the specific property damage is
substantially certain to result from
an authorized government action.
Webb v. City of Forth Worth, 2022
WL 123219 (Tex. App. 2022).
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
No liability (exceptions to
waiver) for: Immunity waived as to:
(1) discretionary function (1) any act by employee in scope of
Utah Governmental employment;
Immunity Act (GIAU). (distinct and limited
immunity for decision that (2) contractual obligations;
U.C.A. §§ 63G-7-101 Written Notice of Claim must be (3) defective, unsafe condition of
involves policy-making
through 63G-7-904 filed within one (1) year after road, sidewalk, bridge, etc.;
function);
(1963). denial of claim. U.C.A. §§ 63G-7- (4) defect or condition of building, Property Damage:
See “Little Test” Little v.
“Governmental Entity” 401. Utah, 667 P.2d 49 (Utah structure, etc. (U.C.A. § 63G-7-301); $233,600.
and its employees 1983) (e.g., fire fighting). and
Within sixty (60) days of filing U.C.A. § 63G-7-604(1)(c).
retain immunity for all (2) assault, false (5) injury or damage resulting from
written Notice of Claim Personal Injury:
“governmental imprisonment; employee driving or being in control
government must approve or
UTAH functions” (defined as (3) negligent inspection; of a vehicle. U.C.A. § 63G-7- $583,900.
deny. Then suit can be brought.
“activity, undertaking, (4) judicial proceedings; 202(3)(c)(2). U.C.A. § 63G-7-604(1)(a).
U.C.A. §§ 63G-7-401, 402, 403.
or operation of a (5) operation or repair of Three-part test to determine $2 million aggregate limit
governmental entity”) Plaintiff has one (1) year after
flood systems; and whether there is immunity: for single occurrence.
no matter how labelled, denial of claim or after the 60-day
(6) many others. (1) whether the activity is a U.C.A. § 63G-7-604(1)(d).
unless expressly waived period ends to bring the action.
Utah Code Ann. §§63-G-7-401, U.C.A. § 63G-7-201. governmental function;
in Act. (2) whether governmental immunity
402, 403. Governmental entity
“Governmental Entity” was waived for the particular
immune from latent
includes State and all its activity; and
condition of road, tunnel,
political subdivisions. (3) whether there is an exception to
bridge, sidewalk or any
that waiver. Winkler v. Lemieux, 329
public building or
P.3d 849 (Utah App. 2014).
structure.
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
Construction and maintenance of

Notice of a claim against a town Municipality liable for
Common law immunity. streets and sidewalks are
for insufficiency of a bridge or proprietary function, but Damages against a town
Vermont Supreme governmental functions protected by
culvert must be within twenty not for governmental for insufficiency of bridge
court has held doctrine of sovereign immunity, but
(20) days. Vt. Stat. Ann. 19, § 987. function. One of the few or culvert is $75,000 or
municipalities liable maintenance of sewers is a
states that retains the the limits of liability
only where act is Personal injury and property proprietary function not protected.
governmental-proprietary insurance, whichever is
proprietary in nature claims must be filed within three Dugan v. City of Burlington, 375 A.2d
VERMONT distinction. greater. Vt. Stat. Ann. 19,
and not governmental. (3) years. Vt. Stat. Ann. 12, §§ 991 (Vt. 1977).
Governmental Function: A § 985.
Hillerby v. Town of 512(4) and 512(5). Municipal employee liable for
Colchester, 706 A.2d weighing of the type of A municipality’s sovereign
Small claims ($2,000 or less) operation of motor vehicle because
446 (Vt. 1997); Morway public policy immunity to the extent of
actions against the State must be of general duty to keep proper
v. Trombley, 789 A.2d considerations that would its insurance coverage. Vt.
filed within 18 months. Vt. Stat. lookout and operate vehicle in safe
965 (Vt. 2001). warrant shielding from Stat. Ann. 29, § 1403.
Ann. Tit. §32-932. manner. Morway v. Trombly, 789
liability.
A.2d 965 (Vt. 2001).
Municipal corporations are

immune from liability
when performing
Counties viewed as “political
governmental functions
subdivisions” of Commonwealth and
but are not when
entitled to same immunity. Mann v.
Doctrine of sovereign exercising proprietary
Arlington County Bd., 98 S.E.2d 515
immunity has not lost Notice of claim must be given functions. Niese v. City of
(Va. 1957) (no governmental- No caps for local
its vitality in Virginia. within six (6) months of accrual. Alexandria, 564 S.E.2d 127
VIRGINIA proprietary distinction). government. Va. St. §
Va. St. § 8.01-195.3; (Va. 2002); T Jean Moreau
Messina v. Burden, 321 Va. St. § 8.01-195.3. & Assocs. v. Health Ctr. Cities receive reduced immunity. 8.01-195.3.
S.E.2d 657 (Va. 1984). Comm’n, 720 S.E.2d 105 May be liable if proprietary function,
(Va. 2012). immune if governmental function.
Hoggard v. City of Richmond, 200
Liable only for gross
S.E. 610 (Va. 1939).
negligence in operation of
pols, parks, playgrounds.
Va. St. § 15.2-1809.
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
Actions Against
Political Subdivisions,
Municipal and Quasi- Notice of claim on standard form
Municipal must be presented to appointed Local governmental No liability for discretionary
Corporations. agent of local government within entities liable for both functions (planning or operational
applicable statute of limitations. governmental and level). R.C.W.A. § 4.96.010(2).
R.C.W.A. §§ 4.96.010 to
WASHINGTON R.C.W.A. § 4.96.020. proprietary acts to the None
50 (1967). Evangelical United Brethren Church
same extent as if they
“Local governmental Suit can be filed sixty (60) days were a person. R.C.W.A. § of Adna v. State, 407 P.2d 440
entity” means a county, after filing of Standard Notice of 4.96.010(1). (Wash. 1965).
city, town, special Claim Form.
district, municipal
corporation.
The Governmental Tort Political subdivisions

absolutely immune from No limit on economic
Claims and Insurance
policy-making acts and 2-Step Process damages.
Reform Act.
have qualified immunity (1) Court identifies whether the Non-economic damages
W. Va. Code § 29- 12A-
for discretionary acts that nature of the act policy-making acts limited to $500,000 per
1, et seq. (applies only
do not violate clearly (immune) or discretionary occurrence.
to political subdivisions,
Two (2) years after the cause of established rights and governmental functions (Step 2). W. Va. Code §29-12A-6.
not the State)
action arose or after the injury, laws.
Political subdivision death or loss was discovered or (2) If act is discretionary, court Complaint must include a
Political subdivisions liable determines if plaintiff’s statutory or demand for a judgment
employee has qualified reasonably should’ve been for certain types of claims: constitutional rights violated. If not, for the damages that the
WEST VIRGINIA immunity. discovered, whichever last occurs (1) Operation of motor State is immune. judge in a nonjury trial or
Governmental or within any applicable shorter vehicle; An insurance policy may waive the jury in a jury trial finds
immunity laws are period of time. W. Va. Code §29-
(2) Maintenance of public defense of immunity. W. Virginia that the complainant is
confusing with 12A-6.
property; and Reg’l Jail & Corr. Facility Auth. v. A.B., entitled to be awarded
patchwork of
766 S.E.2d 751 (W. Va. 2014). but shall not specify in the
inconsistent holdings. (3) Negligent maintenance
demand any monetary
W. Virginia Dep’t of of roads, sidewalks, For list of acts for which immune see amount for damages
Health & Human Res. v. bridges, sewers and §29-12A-5. sought. W. Va. Code §29-
Payne, 746 S.E.2d 554 aqueducts.
12A-6(a).
(W.Va. 2013). W. Va. Code §29-12A-4(3).
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
Public officer or employee
immune for discretionary
acts. Three exceptions to general rule of
immunity:
Claims Against Barillari v. City of
Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d (1) Wilful and wanton activity;
Government Bodies or
759 (Wis. 1995); Wis. Stat. (2) Ministerial task; and Claim against municipality
Officers, Agents or
§ 893.80 (Wisconsin’s (3) Employee aware of known and for negligent use of a
Employees.
Discretionary Immunity compelling danger that creates duty municipal motor vehicle
Wis. Stat. §§ 893.80 to Statute). limited to $250,000. No
to act. Barillari, supra.
893.83 (1987). punitives. Wis. Stat. §
Wisconsin Safe Place Ministerial task occurs when act is
Local agencies and their Statute (Wis. Stat. § 345.05(3).
certain, absolute, and imperative,
employees are 101.11). Employer must Actions involving
Notice of Claim served on proper involving merely the performance of
generally immune from provide safe workplace. government vehicles
agency must be made within 120 a specific task which the law
liability. Wis. Stat. § Conflict as to whether it exempt from registration
days of date of occurrence. imposes, prescribes and defines. If
893.80(4). imposes a ministerial or under Motor Vehicle
Actual notice exception. act involves judgment or discretion,
Governmental entities discretionary duty. then there is immunity because it is a Code limited to $50,000.
are required to Wis. Stat. § 893.80 Wis. Stat. §
Municipality liable for discretionary and not a ministerial
WISCONSIN indemnify their Normal Statute of Limitations for 345.05(1)(bm).
operation of motor vehicle. act.
employees for suits property damage is six (6) years, Wis. Stat. § 345.05. Limit of $50,000 against
Bauder v. Delavan-Darien Sch. Dist.,
related to acts but suit against government any volunteer fire
Whether Safe Place 558 N.W.2d 881 (Wis. App. 1996)
committed within the agency must be filed within three company, political
Statute (§ 101.11) requires (decision of teacher to move class
scope of their (3) years from date notice is corporation, government
employers to furnish safe indoors was discretionary).
employment. Wis. Stat. given. Wis. Stat. § 893.80. subdivision or agency.
§ 895.46. Therefore, it place of employment, Sewer system design and
whether it imposes a Wis. Stat. § 893.80(3).
is possible for a plaintiff construction is discretionary. Sewer
ministerial or discretionary system maintenance is a ministerial. Damages against a
to indirectly recover
duty on a government Menick v. City of Menasha, 547 volunteer fire company
damages from a
employer is not clear but is N.W.2d 778 (Wis. App. 1996). are limited to $25,000.
government entity by
likely discretionary. Wis. Stat. §
filing suit directly No action can be maintained for
Spencer v. County of 893.80(1)(b)(3).
against an officer or accumulation of snow or ice on any
employee. Brown, 573 N.W.2d 222 bridge or highway unless the
(Wis. App. 1997). But see accumulation existed for three
Anderson v. City of weeks. Wis. Stat. § 893.83.
Milwaukee, 544 N.W.2d
630 (Wis. App. 1996).
CLAIMS/ACTIONS
ALLOWED
Claims allowed for: The WGCA abolishes all judicially
Personal Injury: $250,000
(1) Operating motor created categories such as
per person; $500,000 per
vehicle: Wyo. Stat. § 1-39- governmental or proprietary
Wyoming occurrence.
105. functions and discretionary or
Governmental Claims Written Notice of Claim must be ministerial acts previously used by Governmental entity can
(2) Operating building or
Act (WGCA). presented with two (2) years. the courts to determine immunity or purchase liability
park: Wyo. Stat. § 1-39-
Wyo. Stat. §§ 1-39-101 Wyo. Stat. § 1-39-113. liability. insurance in which case
106.
to 121 (1979). Compliance with Notice of Claim limits are extended to
(3) Airport: Wyo. Stat. § 1- Exclusions from the waiver of liability match limits of policy.
Except as provided in requirement no longer has to be are listed at W.S. 1-39-120:
39-107
WYOMING the WGCA, a alleged in complaint. Brown v. Wyo. Stat. § 1-39-118.
City of Casper, 248 P.3d 1136 (4) Operating public (1) defect in plan or design of bridge,
governmental entity Property Damage: Claim
(Wyo. 2011). utilities (gas, electric, culvert, highway, road, street,
(i.e., state or local must be less than $500.
water, etc.) and ground sidewalk or parking lot;
government body) is Suit must be filed within one (1) Wyo. Stat. § 1-39-118(f).
transportation: Wyo. Stat. (2) failure to construct or reconstruct
granted immunity from year of written Notice of Claim. Health Care: Claims
§ 1-39-108. bridge, culvert, etc.; and
liability for any tort. Wyo. Stat. § 1-39-114. against providers limited
Wyo. Stat. § 1-39-104. (5) Operating hospital: (3) maintenance, including
to $1 million regardless of
Wyo. Stat. § 1-39-109. maintenance to compensate for
claims or claimants. Wyo.
(6) Torts of police: Wyo. weather conditions, of any bridge,
Stat. § 1-39-1109(b).
Stat. § 1-39-112. culvert, etc.
These materials and other materials promulgated by Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer, S.C. may become outdated or superseded as time goes by. If you should have questions
regarding the current applicability of any topics contained in this publication or any publications distributed by Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer, S.C., please contact Gary Wickert at
gwickert@mwl-law.com. This publication is intended for the clients and friends of Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer, S.C. This information should not be construed as legal advice
concerning any factual situation and representation of insurance companies and\or individuals by Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer, S.C. on specific facts disclosed within the
attorney\client relationship. These materials should not be used in lieu thereof in anyway.

Municipal County Local Governmental Liability Chart 00212510

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Municipal County Local Governmental Liability Chart 00212510

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MATTHIESEN, WICKERT & LEHRER, S.C.

Hartford, WI ❖ New Orleans, LA ❖ Orange County, CA

MUNICIPAL/COUNTY/LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY AND TORT LIABILITY IN ALL 50 STATES

State Immunity vs. Political Subdivision Immunity

Discretionary vs. Ministerial Acts

Public Duty Doctrine

Federal Civil Rights Liability (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

Kansas Tort Claims Act. No liability for:

Governmental Tort Governmental agency is

Tort Liability, Political $500,000 Per Person;

See N.M.R.A. §§ 41-4-4 through 41- N.M.R.A. § 41-4-19.

City liable for light and $250,000 Per Person

Oklahoma Thirty-seven (37) exceptions where

Exceptions to immunity: Damages may not exceed

Construction and maintenance of

Municipal corporations are

The Governmental Tort Political subdivisions

You might also like