A few months ago, I blogged with some skepticism about a Court of Appeals decision having to do with immunity for enforcement of an animal control ordinance by the City of Evansville.
The Court of Appeals offered some (in my mind) muddled reasoning for holding that designation of the dog as a dangerous animal wasn’t part of the enforcement mechanism for the Evansville animal control ordinance.
Turns out my skepticism was justified. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision in Davis v. Animal Control – City of Evansville(pdf).
[T]he critical determination is not whether a governmental entity failed to follow procedures; it is whether a governmental entity or employee failed to enforce a law. In Mullin, we held that responding to a fire emergency is not an activity involving government compulsion to obey laws, rules, or regulations or sanctions or attempts to sanction violations thereof. But in this case, we believe it is clear that the plaintiff’s claim does constitute an allegation that the City Defendants failed to enforce the law.
Because the Plaintiff’s claim against the municipality hinges on an allegation that it failed to enforce the law, it’s barred under the Indiana Tort Claims Act granting immunity against such claims.
Leave a Reply