Opinion ID: 1696109
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the trial court err in granting summary judgment in favor of the city of newton?

Text: Pruett v. City of Rosedale, 421 So.2d 1046 (Miss. 1982), abolished judicial sovereign immunity as of July 1, 1984. However, the Legislature has repeatedly enacted a legislative doctrine of sovereign immunity, each set to repeal at the end of the fiscal year following the legislative session during which it was enacted so that Pruett has as yet to take effect. Webb v. County of Lincoln, 536 So.2d 1356, 1358 (Miss. 1988). We have declined to usurp the authority given to the Legislature regarding policy making by abolishing sovereign immunity all together. Richardson v. Rankin County School District, 540 So.2d 5, 9 (Miss. 1989). The most recent extension of the dates that sovereign immunity will be in effect is found in Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-6 (Supp. 1990). Sovereign immunity applies to [c]laims or causes of action arising from acts or omissions occurring prior to July 1, 1991, as to the state, or prior to October 1, 1991, as to political subdivisions, [which] shall continue to be governed by the case law governing sovereign immunity as it existed immediately prior to the decision in the case of Pruett v. City of Rosedale, 421 So.2d 1046, and by the statutory law governing sovereign immunity in effect from and after the passage of Chapter 474, Laws of 1985. Whether a municipality enjoys sovereign immunity under pre- Pruett law depends upon whether the alleged conduct occurred in the exercise of a governmental function or in the exercise of a proprietary or corporate function. [T]here can be no recovery against a municipality based on negligence in the exercise of functions which are essentially governmental in character; however, when acting in a private or a proprietary capacity, it is liable in tort the same as private corporations. White v. City of Tupelo, 462 So.2d 707, 708 (Miss. 1984) [quoting Nathaniel v. City of Moss Point, 385 So.2d 599, 601 (Miss. 1980)]. Whether a function is governmental or proprietary in nature is not always easy to ascertain. In discussing the difference, we have said: The classifications are broad, very general, and the line between the two is quite frequently difficult to define. Nevertheless, there are certain activities which courts choose to call `governmental' for which no liability is imposed for wrongful or tortious conduct. These are activities or services which a municipality is required by state law to engage in and to perform. On the other hand, there are activities in which a municipal corporation engages, not required or imposed upon it by law, about which it is free to perform or not. Such activities the courts call `proprietary or corporate'. This Court has judicially construed other permissible `public and governmental' activities to be `corporate or proprietary.'       It is also readily apparent that the determination of whether a certain activity of a municipal corporation is governmental or proprietary for purposes of judicial application is a fact to be determined in each particular case from an examination of the activity involved. Anderson v. Jackson Municipal Airport Authority, 419 So.2d 1010, 1014-1015 (Miss. 1982). Officer Jackson was sent to the corner of Shady Grove and South Main Streets by the Police Chief to locate the driver of an eighteen-wheeler which was obstructing the view of drivers. In this particular case, we hold that Officer Jackson was involved in the exercise of a governmental function. The City of Newton thus enjoys sovereign immunity on that basis. Section 21-15-6 provides that where a municipality has liability coverage as to any action brought against it, recovery may be had but is limited to the proceeds of the insurance coverage. (Emphasis added). The bylaws of the Mississippi Municipal Liability Plan states that the funds contributed by members under the Plan are intended for the payment of claims which are not insured and which are not covered by immunity under Chapter 46, Title 11, Miss. Code Ann., 1972, as amended. Since Officer Jackson was involved in the exercise of a governmental function for which immunity is granted under § 11-46-6, the funds paid by MMLP members do not apply to this action. Therefore, we do not reach the question of whether the Mississippi Municipal Plan is general liability insurance within the meaning of § 21-15-6. Even if the Plan is general liability insurance, it would not provide coverage for an act which enjoys immunity under the law. The lower court's grant of summary judgment was proper as to the City of Newton.