313 So.3d 479
Miss.2021Background
- In spring 2015 raw sewage began backing into Sherry Williams’s home and property in Batesville; the City made repeated visits over ~12 months and undertook various temporary, cost-conscious measures.
- The City initially denied Williams’s request for a lift station because of cost, then ultimately paid ~$10,000 to install a separate lift-station pump serving only her house.
- Williams sued (July 2016) for negligence (failure to properly operate/maintain/supervise/design the sewer system) and later amended to add an inverse-condemnation (constitutional taking/damaging) claim.
- The City moved for summary judgment asserting MTCA immunity under the discretionary-function and discretionary-purchases exceptions (Miss. Code § 11-46-9(1)(d),(g)); the circuit court granted summary judgment and dismissed the taking claim.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court reviewed de novo, found genuine fact issues about whether the City’s conduct was ordinary negligence versus protected policy decisions, and held the trial court erred in dismissing both negligence and inverse-condemnation claims; case reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| MTCA discretionary-function immunity (11-46-9(1)(d),(g)) | Williams: sewer maintenance/clearance was ministerial; City’s failures were negligent, not discretionary policy | City: operation/maintenance and resource allocation for sewer system involve choice and financial policy, so immunity applies | Court: disputed facts remain whether City’s conduct was simple negligence (not policy) or discretionary; immunity not resolved on summary judgment — reversed and remanded |
| Procedural sufficiency of City’s summary-judgment presentation | Williams/concurring justice: City failed to file required Rule 4.02 memorandum and evidentiary support for its motion, so motion was procedurally deficient | City: memorandum was submitted (record omission); trial court considered the motion and parties referenced it | Majority: declined to reverse on procedural grounds (record indicates memorandum existed); Justice Griffis concurred that procedural deficiencies would warrant reversal, but majority remanded on the merits |
| Inverse condemnation (art. 3, §17) — taking/damaging for public benefit | Williams: City knowingly allowed sewage to damage her property to save public funds; that is a taking/damaging for public benefit | City: no taking occurred; damage was not for public use/benefit and therefore not an inverse-condemnation | Court: dismissal was erroneous. Inverse-condemnation (taking/damaging) claim may proceed because damage not dependent on negligence and fact issues exist whether property was damaged for public benefit — reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilcher v. Lincoln Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 243 So. 3d 177 (Miss. 2018) (reaffirmed use of the public-policy-function test for discretionary-function immunity)
- Fortenberry v. City of Jackson, 71 So. 3d 1196 (Miss. 2011) (municipal discretion to construct/operate/maintain sewers under statutory authority)
- Jones v. Mississippi Dep’t of Transp., 744 So. 2d 256 (Miss. 1999) (origin of public-policy function test)
- Mississippi Transp. Comm’n v. Montgomery, 80 So. 3d 789 (Miss. 2012) (articulation of the two-part public-policy test)
- Moses v. Rankin Cnty., 285 So. 3d 620 (Miss. 2019) (maintenance failures can be simple negligence, not policy)
- Bailey v. City of Pearl, 282 So. 3d 669 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) (distinguishing discretionary authority to build from nonpolicy maintenance duties)
- Thompson v. City of Philadelphia, 177 So. 39 (Miss. 1937) (inverse-condemnation liability for special damages not dependent on negligence)
- Hodges v. Town of Drew, 159 So. 298 (Miss. 1935) (constitutional taking/damaging may be predicated on negligent municipal conduct)
- Karpinsky v. Am. Nat’l Ins. Co., 109 So. 3d 84 (Miss. 2013) (summary-judgment burdens and procedure)