Majority: SAUFLEY, C.J., and LEVY, MEAD, and GORMAN, JJ.
Dissent: ALEXANDER, SILVER, and JABAR, JJ.
MEAD, J.
[¶ 1] John W. Searle appeals from a summary judgment entered in the Superi- or Court (Knox County, Hjelm, J.) in favor [393]*393of the Town of Bucksport and the Bucks-port School Department on his complaint asserting negligent maintenance of the visitors’ bleachers at the Bucksport High School football field. Searle contends that the Superior Court erred in holding that the bleachers are not a public building or an appurtenance to a public building pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 8104-A(2) (2009) of the Maine Tort Claims Act (MTCA) and, therefore, no exception to the immunity conferred on governmental entities by the MTCA applies. We affirm the judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
[¶ 2] The following facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, are established in the summary judgment record. See Estate of Fortier v. City of Lewiston, 2010 ME 50, ¶ 2, 997 A.2d 84, 85. On the evening of October 27, 2006, John Searle attended a football game at Bucksport High School. While at the game, he fell through an opening in the visitors’ bleachers caused by a missing board and was injured. One or two days before the game, the high school’s maintenance director noticed the missing board, but did not replace it or cordon off the area as a potential hazard.
A. Description and Use of the Premises
[¶ 3] A parking lot, road, and grassy incline separate the high school building from the football field. A track runs outside the perimeter of the field. A chain-link fence surrounds the track and field. Outside the fence, bleachers are placed parallel to each sideline.
[¶ 4] At the time of the accident, the visitors’ bleachers consisted of a metal frame structure with wooden boards as seats. They were ten tiers high, about thirty-six feet long, and were placed upon a gravel base. These bleachers were previously placed upon the opposite side of the field and used as the home side bleachers. In 1999, the bleachers were dismantled and placed in storage before being reassembled at a later point on the visitors’ side of the field. At some point after Searle’s injury, the visitors’ bleachers were again dismantled and removed. Their current location and use are not established in the record.
[¶ 5] The high school uses the field for sporting events and charges members of the public an admission fee to attend its football games. When the field and bleachers are not being used for school events, they are open for use by the general public. Walkers and joggers use the track, subject to posted restrictions, and other members of the public play unorganized group sports on the field. The Town’s recreation department uses the field for its Pop Warner football program.
B. Procedural History
[¶ 6] After his fall, Searle filed a complaint alleging that the School Department’s and the Town’s negligent maintenance of the visitors’ bleachers caused his injuries. The Town and the School Department filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that, pursuant to the MTCA, they were entitled to immunity from Searle’s claim. The Superior Court granted the motion for summary judgment on the ground that no exception to the Town’s or the School Department’s governmental immunity applied. Specifically, the court found that the visitors’ bleachers were not a public building or an appurtenance to a public building as contemplated by 14 M.R.S. § 8104-A(2). The court did not expressly address the question of whether the bleachers were excluded from the public building exception as “structures, facilities or equipment designed for use primarily by the public in connection with public outdoor recreation” pursuant [394]*394to 14 M.R.S. § 8104-A(2)(A)(3). Following the court’s entry of a final judgment, Searle filed this appeal.
II. DISCUSSION
[¶ 7] We review a grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo. Picher v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, 2009 ME 67, ¶ 7, 974 A.2d 286, 289. In the instant case, where there are no genuine issues of material fact, we must interpret the MTCA to determine whether the Town and the School Department are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See id.
[¶ 8] We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo with the primary objective of giving effect to the Legislature’s intent. Rodriguez v. Town of Moose River, 2007 ME 68, ¶ 29, 922 A.2d 484, 492. The use of interpretive aids is necessary only when the plain language of the statute is ambiguous. Windham Land Trust v. Jeffords, 2009 ME 29, ¶ 12, 967 A.2d 690, 695. As a general rule, words and phrases that are not expressly defined in a statute “must be given their plain and natural meaning and should be construed according to their natural import in common and approved usage.” Goodine v. State, 468 A.2d 1002, 1004 (Me.1983); see also 1 M.R.S. § 72(3) (2009). Also, statutes are interpreted “to avoid absurd, illogical, or inconsistent results.” Windham Land Trust, 2009 ME 29, ¶ 12, 967 A.2d at 695 (quotation marks omitted).
A. The Public Building Exception
[¶ 9] The MTCA confers immunity on governmental entities for all tort claims seeking recovery of damages, except that the immunity is limited by several statutory provisions. 14 M.R.S. § 8103(1) (2009). One such exception, known as the public building exception, provides, “A governmental entity is liable for its negligent acts or omissions in the construction, operation or maintenance of any public building or the appurtenances to any public building.” 14 M.R.S. § 8104-A(2). The immunity exceptions are strictly construed so as to adhere to immunity as the general rule. Sanford v. Town of Shapleigh, 2004 ME 73, ¶ 10, 850 A.2d 325, 329.
[¶ 10] Dictionary definitions of the term building indicate an edifice enclosed by walls and covered by a roof. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines a “building” as follows:
1: a thing built: a: a constructed edifice designed to stand more or less permanently, covering a space of land, usu. covered by a roof and more or less completely enclosed by walls, and serving as a dwelling, storehouse, factory, shelter for animals, or other useful structure—distinguished from structures not designed for occupancy (as fences or monuments) and from structures not intended for use in one place (as boats or trailers) even though subject to occupancy.
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 292 (2002). Black’s Law Dictionary defines a building as “[a] structure with walls and a roof.” Black’s Law Dictionary 222 (9th ed.2009). The bleachers at issue here do not fit these definitions and therefore do not constitute a public building pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 8104-A(2). The remaining issue is whether they qualify as an appurtenance to a public building.
1. Appurtenances and the Maine Tort Claims Act
[¶ 11] “[F]or purposes of section 8104-A(2), an appurtenance is an object or thing that belongs or is attached to a public building, and does not include personal property maintained outside the [395]*395building.” Sanford, 2004 ME 73, ¶ 11, 850 A.2d at 329.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Majority: SAUFLEY, C.J., and LEVY, MEAD, and GORMAN, JJ.
Dissent: ALEXANDER, SILVER, and JABAR, JJ.
MEAD, J.
[¶ 1] John W. Searle appeals from a summary judgment entered in the Superi- or Court (Knox County, Hjelm, J.) in favor [393]*393of the Town of Bucksport and the Bucks-port School Department on his complaint asserting negligent maintenance of the visitors’ bleachers at the Bucksport High School football field. Searle contends that the Superior Court erred in holding that the bleachers are not a public building or an appurtenance to a public building pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 8104-A(2) (2009) of the Maine Tort Claims Act (MTCA) and, therefore, no exception to the immunity conferred on governmental entities by the MTCA applies. We affirm the judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
[¶ 2] The following facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, are established in the summary judgment record. See Estate of Fortier v. City of Lewiston, 2010 ME 50, ¶ 2, 997 A.2d 84, 85. On the evening of October 27, 2006, John Searle attended a football game at Bucksport High School. While at the game, he fell through an opening in the visitors’ bleachers caused by a missing board and was injured. One or two days before the game, the high school’s maintenance director noticed the missing board, but did not replace it or cordon off the area as a potential hazard.
A. Description and Use of the Premises
[¶ 3] A parking lot, road, and grassy incline separate the high school building from the football field. A track runs outside the perimeter of the field. A chain-link fence surrounds the track and field. Outside the fence, bleachers are placed parallel to each sideline.
[¶ 4] At the time of the accident, the visitors’ bleachers consisted of a metal frame structure with wooden boards as seats. They were ten tiers high, about thirty-six feet long, and were placed upon a gravel base. These bleachers were previously placed upon the opposite side of the field and used as the home side bleachers. In 1999, the bleachers were dismantled and placed in storage before being reassembled at a later point on the visitors’ side of the field. At some point after Searle’s injury, the visitors’ bleachers were again dismantled and removed. Their current location and use are not established in the record.
[¶ 5] The high school uses the field for sporting events and charges members of the public an admission fee to attend its football games. When the field and bleachers are not being used for school events, they are open for use by the general public. Walkers and joggers use the track, subject to posted restrictions, and other members of the public play unorganized group sports on the field. The Town’s recreation department uses the field for its Pop Warner football program.
B. Procedural History
[¶ 6] After his fall, Searle filed a complaint alleging that the School Department’s and the Town’s negligent maintenance of the visitors’ bleachers caused his injuries. The Town and the School Department filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that, pursuant to the MTCA, they were entitled to immunity from Searle’s claim. The Superior Court granted the motion for summary judgment on the ground that no exception to the Town’s or the School Department’s governmental immunity applied. Specifically, the court found that the visitors’ bleachers were not a public building or an appurtenance to a public building as contemplated by 14 M.R.S. § 8104-A(2). The court did not expressly address the question of whether the bleachers were excluded from the public building exception as “structures, facilities or equipment designed for use primarily by the public in connection with public outdoor recreation” pursuant [394]*394to 14 M.R.S. § 8104-A(2)(A)(3). Following the court’s entry of a final judgment, Searle filed this appeal.
II. DISCUSSION
[¶ 7] We review a grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo. Picher v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, 2009 ME 67, ¶ 7, 974 A.2d 286, 289. In the instant case, where there are no genuine issues of material fact, we must interpret the MTCA to determine whether the Town and the School Department are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See id.
[¶ 8] We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo with the primary objective of giving effect to the Legislature’s intent. Rodriguez v. Town of Moose River, 2007 ME 68, ¶ 29, 922 A.2d 484, 492. The use of interpretive aids is necessary only when the plain language of the statute is ambiguous. Windham Land Trust v. Jeffords, 2009 ME 29, ¶ 12, 967 A.2d 690, 695. As a general rule, words and phrases that are not expressly defined in a statute “must be given their plain and natural meaning and should be construed according to their natural import in common and approved usage.” Goodine v. State, 468 A.2d 1002, 1004 (Me.1983); see also 1 M.R.S. § 72(3) (2009). Also, statutes are interpreted “to avoid absurd, illogical, or inconsistent results.” Windham Land Trust, 2009 ME 29, ¶ 12, 967 A.2d at 695 (quotation marks omitted).
A. The Public Building Exception
[¶ 9] The MTCA confers immunity on governmental entities for all tort claims seeking recovery of damages, except that the immunity is limited by several statutory provisions. 14 M.R.S. § 8103(1) (2009). One such exception, known as the public building exception, provides, “A governmental entity is liable for its negligent acts or omissions in the construction, operation or maintenance of any public building or the appurtenances to any public building.” 14 M.R.S. § 8104-A(2). The immunity exceptions are strictly construed so as to adhere to immunity as the general rule. Sanford v. Town of Shapleigh, 2004 ME 73, ¶ 10, 850 A.2d 325, 329.
[¶ 10] Dictionary definitions of the term building indicate an edifice enclosed by walls and covered by a roof. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines a “building” as follows:
1: a thing built: a: a constructed edifice designed to stand more or less permanently, covering a space of land, usu. covered by a roof and more or less completely enclosed by walls, and serving as a dwelling, storehouse, factory, shelter for animals, or other useful structure—distinguished from structures not designed for occupancy (as fences or monuments) and from structures not intended for use in one place (as boats or trailers) even though subject to occupancy.
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 292 (2002). Black’s Law Dictionary defines a building as “[a] structure with walls and a roof.” Black’s Law Dictionary 222 (9th ed.2009). The bleachers at issue here do not fit these definitions and therefore do not constitute a public building pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 8104-A(2). The remaining issue is whether they qualify as an appurtenance to a public building.
1. Appurtenances and the Maine Tort Claims Act
[¶ 11] “[F]or purposes of section 8104-A(2), an appurtenance is an object or thing that belongs or is attached to a public building, and does not include personal property maintained outside the [395]*395building.” Sanford, 2004 ME 73, ¶ 11, 850 A.2d at 329. As an initial matter, it is undisputed that the high school is a public building within the meaning of the MTCA. See Lightfoot v. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 35, 2003 ME 24, ¶¶ 7-8, 816 A.2d 63, 65-66. In this case, the bleachers are an appurtenance if they (1) belong to the school and (2) are not personal property.
[¶ 12] Sanford builds upon case law that had evolved over the previous decade. In Stretton v. City of Lewiston, we determined that an athletic field associated with a high school was not an appurtenance to the high school building for purposes of the MTCA. 588 A.2d 739, 741 (Me.1991). We reached this result despite the fact that the plaintiff was injured during activities being conducted on the public field as part of the regular physical education program. Id. at 739-40. In Kitchen v. City of Calais, we concluded that a raised portion of blacktopped curbing was not an appurtenance to a police station despite the fact that the curbing was created to prevent drivers from parking too close to the station. 666 A.2d 77, 78-79 (Me.1995).
[¶ 13] The test, thus, is not a superficial and singular inquiry as to whether something belongs to a building based upon a simple functional connection between the building and the thing in question. In Kitchen and Stretton, the “things” clearly had a functional connection with the public buildings, but we declined to deem them appurtenances for MTCA purposes. See Kitchen, 666 A.2d at 78-79; Stretton, 588 A.2d at 739-41. If any doubts lingered regarding our rejection of a functional-connection test, Sanford laid them to rest. We stated:
[W]e acknowledge that the function-based definition employed by the Superior Court in concluding that the trash bin is an appurtenance is sensible and offers a practical standard. Nonetheless, for the reasons that follow, we decline to adopt a function-based approach and rely instead on a more restrictive understanding of ... [appurtenance].
Sanford, 2004 ME 73, ¶ 8, 850 A.2d at 328.
[¶ 14] We instead decided to apply the well-established definition of a fixture to determine whether an object was an appurtenance. Id. ¶ 9, 850 A.2d at 328-29. Items of personal property, such as trash containers, cannot be considered fixtures and thus could never constitute appurtenances. Id. ¶ 12, 850 A.2d at 329. In Sanford, we observed that the function-based approach “would expand governmental liability by including personal property integral to the activities undertaken at a public building.” Id. ¶ 11, 850 A.2d at 329.
2. Fixtures and Personal Property
[¶ 15] The proper analysis, based upon our precedent, is to determine whether the bleachers are fixtures or personal property. Id. ¶¶ 9, 11, 850 A.2d at 328-29. Personal property consists of “[a]ny movable or intangible thing that is subject to ownership and not classified as real property.” Black’s Law Dictionary at 1337. As explained above, the bleachers are not a building. Therefore, if the bleachers are not fixtures to the high school building, then they are the School Department’s personal property and cannot be an appurtenance for the purpose of 14 M.R.S. § 8104-A(2). See Sanford, 2004 ME 73, ¶¶ 9, 11, 850 A.2d at 329; Black’s Law Dictionary at 1337.
[¶ 16] There is no single criterion by which an object can be deemed a fixture. See Bangor-Hydro Electric Co. v. Johnson, 226 A.2d 371, 375 (Me.1967) (quoting Readfield Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Cyr, 95 Me. 287, 289, 49 A. 1047, 1047 (1901)). However, common law authorities uniform[396]*396ly start with the proposition that objects change from being personal property to being fixtures when they have become so closely connected to land that they are “regarded as an irremovable part of the real property with which they are associated.” Sanford, 2004 ME 73, ¶ 9, 850 A.2d at 329 (quotation marks omitted); see also 8 Powell on Real Property § 57.05[1], at 57-25 (Michael Allan Wolf ed., 2006). An object has made this shift when it is (1) “physically annexed, at least by juxtaposition, to the realty or some appurtenance thereof’; (2) “adapted to the use to which the land to which it is annexed is put”; and (3) “annexed with the intention on the part of the person making the annexation to make it a permanent accession to the realty.” E.g., Enerquin Air, Inc. v. State Tax Assessor, 670 A.2d 926, 929 (Me.1996).
a. Physical Annexation
[¶ 17] Physical annexation occurs when an object is affixed to the realty, see Bangor-Hydro Electric Co., 226 A.2d at 376, or simply through the object’s sheer weight, Hinkley & Egery Iron Co. v. Black, 70 Me. 473, 480 (1880); see also United States v. County of San Diego, 53 F.3d 965, 968 (9th Cir.1995) (concluding that a nuclear device weighing between 400 and 500 tons was annexed to the ground by gravity); Pritchard Petroleum Co. v. Farmers Co-op. Oil & Supply Co., 117 Mont. 467, 161 P.2d 526, 531 (1945) (finding that four-ton tanks held in place by their weight were affixed to the ground).
[¶ 18] The School Department’s bleachers were disassembled, moved to the visitors’ side of the field and reassembled, disassembled again, and removed. They were neither affixed to the ground1 nor did their weight prevent them from being freely relocated. On the contrary, they are as readily relocatable as a tent, a modular stage, or any other temporary structure. Therefore, the bleachers were not annexed in any fashion to the high school or its field. Compare Lewiston Bottled Gas Co. v. Key Bank of Me., 601 A.2d 91, 94 (Me.1992) (concluding that heating and air-conditioning units attached to walls with bolts were physically annexed), and Bangor-Hydro Electric Co., 226 A.2d at 376 (concluding that telephone poles set into the ground were physically annexed to the realty), with Sanford, 2004 ME 73, ¶ 12, 850 A.2d at 329 (concluding that a “freestanding trash bin outside of [a] waste facility” was personal property).
b. Adaptation
[¶ 19] The second element of the fixture test, adaptation of the object to the use of the land, is met when the object and the real property “are united in the carrying out of a common enterprise.” Lewiston Bottled Gas Co., 601 A.2d at 94 (concluding that heating and air-conditioning units installed in hotel rooms were adapted to use of the realty because they helped to create a livable atmosphere for guests). Items of personal property are united to the realty “if they contribute to the purposes of the realty in the sense that they are necessary or useful for the proper operation or utilization of the realty.” 8 Powell on Real Property § 57.05[4](a), at 57-39.
[¶ 20] Bleachers unquestionably fill a role at sporting events. While bleachers are not strictly necessary for conducting [397]*397outdoor sporting events, they are welcomed by spectators, who use them to watch events unfolding on the field. Although they are, in a general sense, adapted to use on a sports field, these particular bleachers were never designed or manufactured for use on the Bucksport High School football field or any other specific site. By contrast, permanent seating is clearly adapted to the unique needs of a particular field or setting. Architects design permanent seating after reviewing the requests of the owner and the physical setting and needs of the location. Concrete foundations unite the land with the structure. Easily dismantled bleachers, like those at issue, are utterly generic and reflect no particular or unique adaptation specific to this football field. See Ener-quin Air, 670 A.2d at 929 (concluding that an “air process system ... designed and installed to perform functions essential to the operation of’ the realty, where the system and realty had a common owner, was adapted to the realty’s use).
c. Intent
[¶ 21] Finally, to determine the owner’s intent, the controlling intention is not the owner’s stated intent at the time of acquisition, or some unspoken plan for the future of the structure or the property, but the intention that the court deduces from external facts. See Enerquin Air, 670 A.2d at 929-30; Cumberland County Power & Light Co. v. Hotel Ambassador, 134 Me. 153, 158, 183 A. 132, 134 (1936). In other words, the test for intent is an objective one based on the totality of the circumstances. See Enerquin Air, 670 A.2d at 929-30; Hotel Ambassador, 134 Me. at 158, 183 A. at 134. In determining intent, courts consider, among other factors:
(1) The mode of annexation;
(2) The removability of the article without injury to the premises;
(3) The extent to which the article is specially adapted to the premises;
(4) The extent to which the [owner] has treated the article as an essential part of the premises ...; [and]
(5) The actual essentiality of the article to the accustomed use or operation of the premises....
8 Powell on Real Property § 57.05[5](b), at 57-42 to 57-45.
[¶22] Addressing these factors seria-tim: the bleachers are not annexed to the ground by physical fasteners or weight; the bleachers have twice been removed without damage to the premises; these generic bleachers have no specific adaptation to the Bucksport football field; by moving the bleachers on two occasions, and ultimately removing them, the owner has clearly not treated them as an essential part of the realty; and these particular bleachers are not essential to the use of the realty. Accordingly, it cannot be shown that the School Department had the requisite intent to make these bleachers an irremovable part of the realty. See Enerquin Air, 670 A.2d at 929-30; 8 Powell on Real Property § 57.05[5](b), at 57-42 to 57-45. On the contrary, the record suggests that the School Department treated these bleachers as mobile, modular units that could be, and were, moved and ultimately removed as the School Department wished. See Hotel Ambassador, 134 Me. at 158, 162, 183 A. at 134-36 (holding that there was no intent to make refrigerators fixtures because, among other factors, they were not designed for the building and were moved between apartments in the building).
[¶ 23] Because we conclude that the visitors’ bleachers meet none of the requirements necessary to qualify as fixtures, and because they clearly do not constitute a building, they constitute personal property and cannot be considered [398]*398appurtenances for purposes of 14 M.R.S. § 8104-A(2). The Town and the School Department are entitled to immunity pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 8103(1).
B. Public Outdoor Recreation
[¶ 24] The Town and the School Department are also entitled to immunity because they are not liable for any claim resulting from “[t]he construction, ownership, maintenance or use of ... [l]and, buildings, structures, facilities or equipment designed for use primarily by the public in connection with public outdoor recreation.” 14 M.R.S. § 8104-A(2)(A)(3). Because we must interpret the MTCA to adhere to immunity as the general rule, we will broadly construe any exclusions in the immunity exceptions. See Rodriguez, 2007 ME 68, ¶ 29, 922 A.2d at 492; Sanford, 2004 ME 73, ¶ 10, 850 A.2d at 329. While fans and spectators at high school football games may not be competing on the field, they clearly are participants in the larger concept of the event that is taking place. They are utilizing a structure “designed for use primarily by the public in connection with public outdoor recreation.” 14 M.R.S. § 8104-A(2)(A)(3) (emphasis added).
[¶ 25] While it may be tempting to differentiate between the players on the field, who are undeniably engaging in outdoor recreation, and the spectators in the stands who are engaging in an activity that is arguably passive, that distinction is unwieldy and unworkable in the MTCA context. Many popular forms of outdoor recreation are passive and involve the enjoyment of the environment or events taking place nearby. Birdwatchers on a bench or a boardwalk in a municipal wilderness preserve are engaging in outdoor recreation. Grandparents watching grandchildren swim off a municipal dock are engaging in outdoor recreation. Any attempt to draw a bright line between active and passive outdoor recreation would lead to “absurd, illogical, or inconsistent results,” which we must avoid. See Windham Land Trust, 2009 ME 29, ¶ 12, 967 A.2d at 695.
[¶26] Further, the statute makes no such distinction. On the contrary, the statute specifically refers to “use ... in connection with public outdoor recreation.” 14 M.R.S. § 8104-A(2)(A)(3) (emphasis added). This language clearly anticipates a spectrum of activities broad enough to include spectators at outdoor sporting events. See id.; Goodine, 468 A.2d at 1004. Therefore, the Town and the School Department are also entitled to immunity pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 8104-A(2)(A)(3).
III. CONCLUSION
[¶ 27] The MTCA reflects a cautious waiver of sovereign immunity by the Legislature in certain carefully circumscribed circumstances. See 14 M.R.S. §§ 8103, 8104-A (2009). It is not unreasonable to conclude that the Legislature intended to open the door to governmental liability in the operation of buildings and their appurtenances where regular maintenance plans and attention minimize the possibility of oversights, but still exclude personal property and outlying structures that ordinarily might not receive the same regular scrutiny and care. See 14 M.R.S. § 8104-A(2)(A)(3). Further, municipalities and other governmental entities are to be encouraged to provide access and structures in connection with outdoor recreation, and such encouragement is offered by the unqualified protection of sovereign immunity. See id. Changes to these legislated policies are for the legislative branch; the courts are delimited by the language of the statute and the dictates of the common law.
[399]*399The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.