Hilderbrand v. Washington County Commissioners

Summary

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed summary judgment for the Washington County Commissioners and Sheriff Donald Smith in an action alleging slander per se, invasion of privacy, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court held that Smith’s decision to discontinue cooperation with the Maine Drug Enforcement Agency and his public explanation of that decision were discretionary functions protected by the Maine Tort Claims Act. The court also affirmed judgment for the Commissioners because Smith was not their employee and they could not be vicariously liable for his conduct.

Holdings

1. Sheriff Smith was entitled to discretionary function immunity under the Maine Tort Claims Act because both his decision to terminate the Washington County Sheriff's Office's relationship with the MDEA and his public explanation of that decision were within the scope of his official discretionary duties.
2. Political considerations or alleged bad faith do not, by themselves, eliminate discretionary-function immunity when the challenged conduct remains within the scope of the official's discretionary authority.
3. The Washington County Commissioners were entitled to summary judgment because Smith was not their employee and therefore they could not be vicariously liable for his conduct.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Sheriff Smith's decision to terminate the Washington County Sheriff's Office's relationship with the MDEA and his public explanation of that decision were discretionary functions protected by immunity under 14 M.R.S. § 8111(1)(C).
2. Whether Smith's alleged political motivation or bad faith defeated discretionary function immunity.
3. Whether the Washington County Commissioners could be vicariously liable for Smith's conduct when Smith was not their employee.

Disposition

affirmed