Poppenheimer v. Estate of Coyle
98 So. 3d 1059
| Miss. | 2012Background
- Poppenheimer, a volunteer firefighter, responded to a fire call in DeSoto County, Mississippi, and was involved in a collision on January 27, 2007.
- He sued the Estate (Coyle’s heirs) and his insurer; the Estate asserted negligence by Poppenheimer as the cause of the collision.
- The cases were consolidated after the Estate filed answers and related actions; Poppenheimer moved to dismiss or for summary judgment arguing MTCA immunity.
- The county court held BVFD was not a governmental entity or instrumentality and that BVFD was an independent contractor; immunity under MTCA did not attach.
- The court also ruled that whether Poppenheimer’s negligence caused the accident was a jury question, denying summary judgment.
- On interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court reviews immunity de novo and addresses whether volunteer firefighters are protected by MTCA or by separate volunteer-liability provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BVFD and its employees are protected under MTCA | Poppenheimer contends BVFD is a political subdivision or instrumentality of the state. | Estate argues BVFD is an independent contractor, not a governmental entity or instrumentality, thus not MTCA-covered. | BVFD is not a governmental entity or instrumentality; not covered by MTCA. |
| Whether the county court erred by denying dismissal or summary judgment | Immunity under MTCA bars suit against Poppenheimer as a volunteer firefighter. | BVFD’s independent-contractor status and lack of MTCA coverage, plus negligence issues, warrant denial of immunity. | The court properly denied the motions; Poppenheimer is not immune under MTCA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flye v. Spotts, 94 So.3d 240 (Miss.2012) (volunteer fire departments are not MTCA-immunized when private and contracted with a county)
- City of Jackson v. Harris, 44 So.3d 927 (Miss.2010) (state immunity considerations and public entity distinctions)
- Whitaker v. Limeco Corp., 32 So.3d 429 (Miss.2010) (persuasive authority on MTCA immunities and related liability issues)
- Richardson v. Adams, 223 So.2d 536 (Miss.1969) (jury questions in negligence and comparative fault considerations)
- Duckworth v. Warren, 10 So.3d 433 (Miss.2009) (negligence and summary-judgment standards in Mississippi)
- Buckel v. Chaney, 47 So.3d 148 (Miss.2010) (Mississippi comparative-negligence framework and evidentiary standards)