Lorman v. City of Rutland

Supreme Court of Vermont · 2018 · Torts

193 A.3d 1174 (Vt. 2018)

Updated July 23, 2026

Tortsmunicipal immunitydiscretionary-function immunitytakingsnuisancetrespassnegligencegovernmental/proprietary distinction

Facts

Plaintiffs lived on a street served by the City's combined sewer/stormwater system, which was over 100 years old. In 1987, video inspection showed cracked, structurally unsound clay pipes with significant root intrusion, and in 1988 the City chose to slip-line the pipes with smaller polyethylene sleeves rather than replace them entirely. In May 2014, an extremely intense rain and hail storm caused massive system flow increases and combined wastewater overflows, and sewage backed up into plaintiffs' basements. Plaintiffs claimed the backups were caused by the system's design, including a bend in one pipe and reduced flow from the slip-lining decision.

Issue

Whether the City could be held liable in tort for sewage backups allegedly caused by its sewer-system design and 1988 slip-lining decision, or whether those decisions were protected by municipal discretionary-function immunity. The court also considered whether the intermittent sewage backups amounted to a compensable constitutional taking.

Rule

A municipality is immune from tort liability for administrative functions involving basic policy decisions, including planning-level design choices that require judgment and the weighing of public policy considerations such as cost, safety, environmental concerns, regulatory constraints, and allocation of limited resources. By contrast, routine ministerial construction, repair, or maintenance acts are not protected by discretionary-function immunity. A takings claim requires that the government intend to invade a protected property interest or that the invasion be the direct, natural, or probable result of authorized activity, and temporary, intermittent, limited, and transient intrusions do not amount to a taking unless they effectively take an easement.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Akron, Ohio, the city discovered that several storm-sewer trunks serving an older neighborhood were undersized and deteriorating. After reviewing engineering reports, roadwork schedules, environmental permit limits, and a tight capital budget, the city chose a cheaper relining method instead of full replacement; two years later, heavy rain caused wastewater to enter Nina Patel's basement.

If Nina sues the city for negligence, arguing the city should have installed larger replacement pipes, which is the strongest argument for the city?

Explanation. The majority held that a municipality is immune from tort liability for administrative acts involving basic policy decisions, including sewer-system design and upgrade choices that require weighing cost, engineering recommendations, regulatory constraints, and limited resources. Even though sewer construction and maintenance may generally be proprietary, discretionary-function immunity still protects planning/design choices from judicial second-guessing.