Day's Auto Body, Inc. v. Town of Medway
145 A.3d 1030
Me.2016Background
- Day’s Auto sued Town of Medway and Emery Lee and Sons, Inc. (ELS) for negligence arising from the Town’s and ELS’s response to a fire at Day’s Auto’s shop; MTCA immunity issues were raised.
- Fire response allegedly involved improper water application, restricted entry, and other tactics by the Town that allegedly worsened property damage.
- ELS, directed by the Town’s fire department, brought an excavator to the scene and performed several actions under Town direction; ELS billed the Town four hours of work.
- Trial court granted summary judgments in favor of the Town and ELS, holding MTCA immunity applicable.
- Court analyzed MTCA framework (immunity with narrow statutory exceptions) and whether Town or ELS fell within any exceptions or immunities; Day’s Auto appeal followed.
- Court ultimately affirmed the summary judgments for the Town and ELS, concluding immunity applied under MTCA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| MTCA vehicle exception applicability | Day’s Auto contends 8104-A(1) applies | Town argues 8104-A(1) does not apply and discretionary immunity applies | 8104-A(1) does not apply; immunity affirmed for Town |
| ELS as MTCA employee | Day’s Auto argues ELS not Town employee | ELS acted under Town direction and control | ELS is a Town employee for MTCA purposes; immunity applies to ELS |
| Intentional act immunity for ELS | Immunity does not apply to alleged negligent acts by ELS | §8111(1)(E) provides immunity for intentional acts within scope of employment | ELS entitled to intentional act immunity; Day’s Auto claims against ELS fail |
| Insurance defense to immunity | Day’s Auto relies on §8112(9) to defeat immunity via private insurance | Section 8112(9) does not defeat immunity where immunity exists | §8112(9) does not defeat immunity when MTCA immunizes the employee |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. Augusta Mental Health Institute, 606 A.2d 789 (Me. 1992) (vehicle-related immunity requires actual negligent operation within 8104-A(1))
- Thompson v. Dep’t of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, 2002 ME 78, 796 A.2d 674 (Me. 2002) (limits vehicle exception to harms from negligent vehicle use)
- Kennedy v. State, 1999 ME 85, 730 A.2d 1252 (Me. 1999) (MTCA employee definition and 'arm of the court' analogies)
- Cushman v. Tilton, 652 A.2d 650 (Me. 1995) (broad MTCA employee interpretation; factors for agency status)
- Clark v. Maine Medical Center, 559 A.2d 358 (Me. 1989) (employee scope and governmental responsibility)
- Legassie v. Bangor Publ’g Co., 1999 ME 180, 741 A.2d 442 (Me. 1999) (eight-factor test for employee vs independent contractor)