Flye v. Spotts
2012 Miss. LEXIS 366
| Miss. | 2012Background
- This interlocutory appeal asks whether the District I Fire Department, a volunteer department organized under the Mississippi Non-Profit Corporation Act, is a political subdivision under the MTCA and thus immune from liability.
- Spotts sued the volunteer department and Daniel Flye after a collision involving a Lowndes County Sheriff’s Department vehicle while responding to an emergency.
- The department is funded by county millage and state insurance rebates; county provides equipment but claims no control over its operations; volunteers are unpaid with nominal expense reimbursements.
- Plaintiffs contend the department is autonomous with its own board and private fundraising and is not a political subdivision; county insurance is contractual, not control-based.
- The trial court denied summary judgment; the court reviews de novo the MTCA and the department’s status as a political subdivision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district fire department is a political subdivision under MTCA | Spotts argues it is a private, autonomous entity, not a public body. | District I Fire Department argues it is a body corporate performing governmental activities. | Not a political subdivision; private corp not included under MTCA. |
| Whether independent contractors with a county have MTCA immunity | Independent contractor status does not grant immunity under MTCA. | Contractor might be immune if treated as a governmental instrumentality. | Independent contractors generally not immune; no immunity here. |
| Whether the term 'body corporate' includes private corporations contracting with government | Private corporate status should be outside MTCA immunity. | Private entities performing governmental activities may be immune. | 'Body corporate' in MTCA refers to public entities, not private corporations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Aberdeen v. Tackett, 255 So.2d 904 (Miss. 1971) (defined body corporate/politic and public functions)
- Mozingo v. Scharf, 828 So.2d 1246 (Miss. 2002) (private entity not immune; instrumentality analysis; distinguishes private contractor status)
- Knight v. Terrell, 961 So.2d 30 (Miss. 2007) (independent contractors generally not immune under MTCA; public safety duties as governmental activities)
- City of Jackson v. Harris, 44 So.3d 927 (Miss. 2010) (context on governmental activities and MTCA interpretations)