## Facts

- Richey Wayne Peavler was injured when a car failed to negotiate a curve on a county road and struck a tree.
- Peavler sued the Monroe County Board of Commissioners, alleging negligence for failing to place or maintain a curve warning and/or speed advisory sign.
- A jury returned a verdict for Monroe County after the trial court instructed that any duty to post warning signs was “discretionary.”
- In a separate case, Ronald and Pamela Hout sued the Steuben County Board of Commissioners for failing to place a warning sign for motorists approaching a “T” intersection.
- Steuben County sought summary judgment based on discretionary-function immunity; the trial court denied the motion.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the Peavler judgment (ordering a new trial) and, in Hout, directed summary judgment for the county.
- The Indiana Supreme Court accepted both cases to resolve conflicting approaches to discretionary-function immunity under the Indiana Tort Claims Act.

## Issues

1. How should “discretionary function” immunity under the Indiana Tort Claims Act be defined and applied.
2. Whether county decisions about installing or maintaining traffic warning signs are immune discretionary (planning/policy) acts or potentially actionable operational (implementation) acts.
3. Whether Tort Claims Act immunity is determined by the court as a matter of law or submitted to the jury.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court adopted a planning-versus-operational framework to interpret “discretionary function” immunity.
- The Court held that discretionary-function immunity depends on the nature of the governmental decision (policy formation versus implementation), not the actor’s title or the fact that judgment was involved.
- The Court held that immunity under the Act is a question of law for the court, not a question of fact for the jury.
- The Court remanded both cases for further proceedings applying the planning-operational analysis to the traffic-sign decisions, rather than treating immunity as categorically established in either direction.

## Legal Principles

- Discretionary-function immunity protects planning or policy decisions that involve political, economic, or social judgment, including priority-setting and balancing safety, costs, and resource allocation.
- Operational conduct that implements established policy, performs routine duties, or carries out legal mandates is not protected by discretionary-function immunity.
- “Discretionary” does not mean any act involving choice; otherwise, the immunity exception would overwhelm tort liability.
- The immunity inquiry is fact-sensitive but the ultimate classification of the governmental function as discretionary (immune) or operational (not immune) is determined by the court as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The Indiana Supreme Court clarified discretionary-function immunity under the Indiana Tort Claims Act by adopting the planning-operational test and assigning the immunity determination to the court, remanding both traffic-sign cases for application of that framework.


Peavler v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Monroe Cnty., 528 N.E.2d 40 (Ind. 1988)