County Commissioners v. Love

Urner, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. In the basement of the Harford County court house are lavatories to which there is public access, by a stairway, from the first floor of the building. At the bottom of the stairs there is a concrete platform, seven inches high, from which the plaintiff stumbled as she was on her way to the passage leading to the lavatories. The accident occurred because of her mistaken belief that upon reaching the platform she was on the floor level of the passageway.

In this suit against the county to recover for the injuries resulting from her fall, it is alleged that the lower part of the stairway was negligently so constructed and inadequately lighted as to be unsafe for public use. While denying the charge of negligence, the county commissioners claimed immunity from the suit upon the ground that the maintenance of the court house is a governmental function. That defense, as first interposed by demurrer to the declaration, was overruled by the Circuit Court for Harford County. The case was subsequently removed to the Circuit Court for Carroll County, and at the trial in that court the same defense was urged by appropriate prayers, which were refused.

The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, and from the ensuing judgment the defendants have appealed. Since the rendition of the judgment below, this court has adjudicated another case upon a principle by which the decision of the question presented on this appeal must also be governed. In the recently decided case of Baltimore v. State, use of Blueford, 173 Md. 267 , 195 A. 571, 576 , the municipality was sued by the parents of an eleven year old girl who was drowned in a public swimming pool in one of the city’s parks. It was alleged that the tragedy ⁴³¹ occurred because of negligence on the part of the guards employed by the city to provide for the safety of bathers in the pool.

On the appeal by the city from a judgment for the plaintiffs, it was determined that the maintenance of the public swimming pool was: an exercise of a governmental function and that consequently the city was not liable for negligence of its employees at the pool in the performance of their duties. In the opinion of the court, delivered by Judge Offutt, the controlling principle was thus stated: “Where the act in question is sanctioned by legislative authority, is solely for the public benefit, with no profit or emolument inuring to the municipality, and tends to benefit the public health and promote the welfare of the whole public, and has in it no element of private interest, it is governmental in its nature.” It had been previously decided, in Baltimore v. State, use of Ahrens, 168 Md. 619 , 179 A. 169 , that as the city was exercising a governmental function in the maintenance of Gwynns Falls Park, it was not liable in damages for a death by drowning alleged to have resulted from an omission to erect signs warning the public of a dangerous condition to which the accident was attributed. The opinion in that case, by Judge Mitchell, quoted, at page 625 of 168 Md., 179 A. 169, 171, the following passage from the opinion, by Judge Parke, in Baltimore v. Eagers, 167 Md. 128, 135 , 173 A. 66 : “If the neglect or wrongful act was in the course of the performance of a purely governmental duty which had been imposed upon the municipality as a governmental or public agency by legislative enactment, there would be no liability in tort in favor of an individual who had been injured. This doctrine has general recognition, and various grounds have been assigned in its support, notably that, at common law, no civil action would lie against a municipal corporation for the neglect of a public duty imposed upon it as the agent of the public by a general law for the benefit of the public generally, and from the performance of which the municipal corporation would receive no profit or special advantage.” ⁴³² In Gold v. Baltimore, 137 Md. 335, 338 , A. 588, it was held that the city, in maintaining schools, is performing a governmental duty, and therefore is not liable for personal injuries caused by the faulty construction or want of repair of a school building.

The conclusions of this court in the cases just referred to are in accord with the weight of judicial opinion in other jurisdictions, as reflected in Dillon on Municipal Corporations (5th Ed.) secs. 1650, 1643, 1657, 1658, and in McQuillan on Municipal Corporations (2nd Ed.) secs. 2844, 2846, 2813, and as expressed in numerous cases, including Snider v. St. Paul, 51 Minn. 466 , 53 N. W. 763, 766 ; Cunningham v. St. Louis, 96 Mo. 53 , 8 S. W. 787 ; Schwalk’s Admr. v. Louisville, 135 Ky. 570 , 122 S. W. 860 ; Hill v. Boston, 122 Mass. 344 ; Kelley v. Boston, 186 Mass. 165 , 71 N. E. 299 ; Wilcox v. Rochester, 190 N. Y. 137 , 82 N. E. 1119 ; Hamilton County v. Mighels, 7 Ohio St. 109 ; Howard v. New Orleans, 159 La. 443 , 105 So. 443 ; Bordet v. New York, 199 App.