Taghi 'Ted' Boroujerdi v. City of Starkville
158 So. 3d 1106
| Miss. | 2015Background
- In Feb. 2009 heavy rain caused raw sewage to back up into Ted Boroujerdi’s Starkville home and yard; he slipped in the sewage and alleged physical injuries and property damage.
- Boroujerdi sued the City of Starkville for negligent maintenance of its sewer system, seeking $500,000 for medical bills and pain and suffering.
- The City moved for summary judgment asserting MTCA discretionary-function immunity under Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-9(1)(d); mayor’s affidavit stated no ordinance, state/federal regulation, or permit had been violated.
- Trial court granted summary judgment relying on this Court’s prior decision in Fortenberry v. City of Jackson that sewage maintenance is discretionary.
- This Court revisited discretionary-function analysis post-Brantley and Little, holding general sewage maintenance is discretionary but certain narrower duties (imposed by statute/regulation/permit) can be ministerial.
- Court reversed summary judgment and remanded so plaintiff may attempt to show the City’s alleged inaction violated a ministerial statute, regulation, or ordinance tied to his flooding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether municipal sewage maintenance is discretionary or ministerial under MTCA | Boroujerdi: once a municipality builds/operates a sewer, duty to maintain is ministerial (no immunity) | City: maintenance is discretionary under § 21-27-189 and thus immune under § 11-46-9(1)(d) | General sewage maintenance is discretionary, but narrower duties made ministerial by statute/regulation/ordinance are not immune |
| Whether Fortenberry should be overruled | Boroujerdi urged overruling and adopting a ministerial rule | City relied on Fortenberry to affirm immunity | Court declined to re-adopt Fortenberry’s analysis; applied Brantley framework instead |
| Whether plaintiff’s response defeated summary judgment | Boroujerdi: alleged City had notice and failed to repair; argued duty was ministerial generally | City: submitted affidavit denying any regulatory/permit violation; moved for summary judgment | Plaintiff failed at summary judgment to identify any specific statute/regulation/ordinance making the City’s alleged failure ministerial; remand allowed to attempt to do so |
| Proper analytical test for discretionary-function immunity | N/A (argued in briefing) | N/A | Court adopts Brantley approach: identify overarching discretionary function, then ask whether any narrower duty is rendered ministerial by statute/regulation/ordinance |
Key Cases Cited
- Fortenberry v. City of Jackson, 71 So.3d 1196 (Miss. 2011) (plurality holding municipal sewage maintenance discretionary under prior public-policy test)
- Little v. Mississippi Dep’t of Transp., 129 So.3d 132 (Miss. 2013) (function — not individual acts — controls MTCA immunity; highway maintenance deemed ministerial under statute)
- Brantley v. City of Horn Lake, 152 So.3d 1106 (Miss. 2014) (abolished public-policy test; held court must identify broader discretionary function then examine narrower duties for ministerial directives)