David William Linville v. City Janesville

WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, J. The defendants City of Janesville (City) and the City's paramedics 1 seek review of a published court of appeals' decision 2 which denied them immunity from liability under the recreational immunity statute 3 for claims arising from a drowning at the City's pond. The court of appeals determined that Kelly Linville and her four-year-old son David were not engaged in a recreational activity at the time of David's drowning. Accordingly, the court determined the City and the paramedics were not immune under the statute. We disagree with the court of appeals that Kelly and David were not engaged in a recreational activity at the time of the drowning. Although Kelly Linville did not want to be at the Pond, her subjective intent is not controlling. The intrinsic nature of the activity at the time, i.e., looking at the fishing spots in preparation for fishing the next day, was recreational. We agree with the court of appeals, however, that the City and paramedics are not immune under the recreational immunity statute from claims of negligent rescue and treatment. We conclude that in furnishing rescue and medical treatment the City was acting independent of its functions as owner of recreational land and that its public paramedic services rendered in this case were unrelated to the City's role as owner of the Pond. The City's immunity for its functions as owner of recreational land cannot shelter its liability for negligently performing another function. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals. Finally, we address the Linvilles' argument that the statutory ceiling on damages of $50,000 for suing a governmental body or its employees is inapplicable. We conclude the statutory ceiling is applicable.