Wiltshire v. Mississippi Fairgrounds Commission
2011 Miss. App. LEXIS 184
Miss. Ct. App.2011Background
- Wiltshire was injured when a loose cow named Nola trampled her in a main aisle of a Dixie National Livestock Show at the Mississippi State Fairgrounds in Jackson, Mississippi, on February 5, 2002.
- The cow was led by Micah Dingier, who lost hold of the halter after being dragged; the cow then struck Wiltshire from behind as it became spooked in a cluttered barn aisle.
- Wiltshire alleged the cluttered aisle, unleashed dogs, and an inexperienced handler contributed to the dangerous condition.
- Wiltshire filed suit in May 2003 seeking premises liability under the MTCA; multiple defendants were named, including MFC and the State, later focusing on MFC’s immunity.
- The trial court initially found the MTCA immunity issue premature due to lack of policy-prong evidence, then granted summary judgment to MFC after a renewed motion with Dr. Holder’s affidavit (2006), and final judgment was entered in 2009.
- Wiltshire appeals arguing the renewed motion was improper and that MFC was not immune under the MTCA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| I. propriety of renewed motion | Wiltshire: Rule 59(e) governs; renewed motion rehashes original arguments with new affidavit. | Wiltshire: renewed motion was proper to cure missing policy evidence. | Renewed motion properly considered; not controlled by Rule 59(e). |
| II. MTCA discretionary-function immunity | Wiltshire: discretionary-function immunity does not apply; genuine facts remain about dangerous condition. | MFC: Holder affidavit shows public-policy rationale; immunity applies under discretionary-function. | Discretionary-function immunity applies; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Miss. Dep't of Transp., 744 So.2d 256 (Miss. 1999) (two-prong discretionary-function test; policy prong required)
- Dotts v. Pat Harrison Waterway Dist., 938 So.2d 322 (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (actions susceptible to policy analysis; focus on nature of actions)
- Pearl River Valley Water Supply Dist. v. Bridges, 878 So.2d 1013 (Miss.Ct.App.2004) (immunity arises from any applicable MTCA subsection)
- United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (Supreme Court 1991) (federal discretionary-function analysis informing state MTCA approach)
- Price v. Clark, 21 So.3d 509 (Miss. 2009) (de novo review of MTCA applicability; summary-judgment standards)
- State v. Hinds County Bd. of Supervisors, 635 So.2d 839 (Miss.1994) (MTCA immunity framework predicated on policy goals)