Amarylis Fisher v. Town of Hampden

• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
• Decided: April 16, 2026
• Docket: Pen-24-551
• Status: Published
• Author: LIPEZ, J.

Opinion

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2026 ME 33 Docket: Pen-24-551 Argued: November 13, 2025 Decided: April 16, 2026

Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, CONNORS, DOUGLAS, and LIPEZ, JJ.

AMARYLIS FISHER

v.

TOWN OF HAMPDEN et al.

LIPEZ, J.

[¶1] The Town of Hampden, the Town of Veazie, the Town of Orono, the

City of Old Town, and the City of Brewer (collectively, the Municipalities) appeal

from an order of the Superior Court (Penobscot County, Mallonee, J.) denying

their motion for summary judgment on Amarylis Fisher’s negligence claim. The

Municipalities argue that they are immune from suit under the Maine Tort

Claims Act (MTCA), 14 M.R.S. §§ 8101-8118 (2025).1 Because material disputes

of fact remain concerning the Municipalities’ entitlement to immunity, we

dismiss the appeal as interlocutory.

1 During the pendency of this case, 14 M.R.S. § 8102 was amended to extend tort claims protections to “mutual aid emergency response employer[s]” and “personnel,” P.L. 2023, ch. 311, §§ 1-4 (effective Oct. 25, 2023) (codified at 14 M.R.S. § 8102(1), (1-B), (1-C), (3)). This amendment is not relevant to the issues presented on appeal, and the MTCA has otherwise remained unchanged since the lawsuit was filed. We accordingly cite to the current version of the statute. 2

I. BACKGROUND

[¶2] The following facts are drawn from the summary judgment record,

viewed in the light most favorable to Fisher as the nonmoving party. See Est. of

Bean v. City of Bangor, 2022 ME 30, ¶ 2, 275 A.3d 324.

[¶3] The Community Connector is a public transit system serving the City

of Bangor, the Municipalities, and the University of Maine. The City of Bangor

oversees many of the day-to-day operations of the Community Connector, with

some participation by the Municipalities. The extent of the Municipalities’

involvement is disputed.

[¶4] In August 2020, Fisher was struck and injured by a bus in Bangor.

The parties dispute whether the bus that hit Fisher was operating on a

Community Connector route or an intracity Bangor route. The buses operating

on Bangor’s intracity routes are outwardly indistinguishable from those

operating on Community Connector routes.

[¶5] In July 2022, Fisher filed a three-count complaint in the Superior

Court against the City of Bangor, the Community Connector, and the

Municipalities. In Count 1, Fisher alleged that the defendants were liable for

the negligence of their agent, the bus driver, and in Count 2, Fisher alleged that

the Community Connector was a joint venture or enterprise of the City of 3

Bangor and the Municipalities and that each participant in the joint venture was

liable for damages proximately caused by the negligence of any other

participant.2

[¶6] The Municipalities filed a motion for summary judgment on the

grounds that they are immune from suit under the MTCA. The court denied the

motion, determining, as relevant here, that the Municipalities failed to meet

their burden to show that the undisputed material facts negated the existence

of a joint venture. See id. ¶ 6 (explaining that “[i]n MTCA cases involving the

sovereign immunity defense, . . . the governmental entity, as the party asserting

the affirmative defense, has the burden of demonstrating the basis for the

defense”). The court also denied the Municipalities’ subsequent motion to

reconsider its order. See M.R. Civ. P. 7(b)(5), 59(e). This appeal by the

Municipalities followed.

II. DISCUSSION

[¶7] Although appeals from the denial of summary judgment are

interlocutory and thus generally barred by the final judgment rule, appeals

from the “denial of a dispositive motion asserting immunity from suit are

immediately reviewable.” Est. of Bean, 2022 ME 30, ¶ 4, 275 A.3d 324 (quoting

2 In Count 3, Fisher did not assert a separate cause of action but instead sought to negate a defense

by alleging that the defendants waived MTCA immunity by accepting federal grants. 4

Rodriguez v. Town of Moose River, 2007 ME 68, ¶ 16, 922 A.2d 484).

Interlocutory review is not available, however, “[w]hen immunity issues have

underlying fact questions that must be decided before the trial court can

determine the applicability of immunities as a matter of law.” Wilcox v. City of

Portland, 2009 ME 53, ¶ 14, 970 A.2d 295.

[¶8] The Municipalities invoke the MTCA, which grants governmental

entities general immunity from suit “on any and all tort claims seeking recovery

of damages.” 14 M.R.S. § 8103(1). The statute enumerates several exceptions

to that immunity, including, in pertinent part, that “[a] governmental entity is

liable for its negligent acts or omissions in its ownership, maintenance or use

of any . . . [m]otor vehicle.” Id. § 8104-A(1)(A). Fisher contends that this

exception applies because her injuries arose from the negligent operation of a

Community Connector bus. The Municipalities counter that they “did not own

or maintain the bus that struck Fisher, nor did they train, test, or employ the

bus driver,” and that therefore the exception to immunity for use of a motor

vehicle does not apply to them.

[¶9] The threshold question is thus whether the Municipalities were

“us[ing]” the bus within the meaning of the MTCA when it hit Fisher. We have

previously construed the phrase “ownership, maintenance or use” in section 5

8104-A(1) to require a showing that the governmental entity had “some

measure of direct control over [the vehicle] or [its operator].” Est. of Fortier v.

City of Lewiston, 2010 ME 50, ¶ 15, 997 A.2d 84 (holding that a municipality was

immune from a lawsuit involving a plane crash because it “had no direct control

over the . . . aircraft or its pilot”).

[¶10] Whether the Municipalities had some measure of direct control

over the bus or its driver when the bus struck Fisher may depend on whether

the bus was part of the Community Connector, and if so, what role the

Municipalities play in the operation of that system. The summary judgment

record, however, leaves these questions of fact unanswered. Because “[t]he

trial court, not this Court, must make the findings of fact prerequisite to a

determination of whether or not [MTCA] immunities apply,” we cannot resolve

this dispute in this first instance.3 Wilcox, 2009 ME 53, ¶ 14, 970 A.2d 295.

3 The Municipalities fault the trial court for focusing on the question of whether a joint venture existed because, they contend, Fisher’s joint-venture theory is “a means of proving negligence,” which is an issue “separate and secondary to the threshold question of whether a governmental entity is immune.” Although they are correct to an extent, the nature of the relationship between the Municipalities and the City of Bangor vis-à-vis the Community Connector necessarily informs the analysis of whether the Municipalities maintained “some measure of direct control” over the bus or its driver. See Est. of Fortier, 2010 ME 50, ¶ 15, 997 A.2d 84. 6

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as interlocutory.4 See id. ¶¶ 12-15; Est. of

Bean, 2022 ME 30, ¶¶ 4, 7, 275 A.3d 324.

The entry is:

Appeal dismissed.

Mark V. Franco, Esq. (orally), and Susan M. Weidner, Esq., Drummond Woodsum, Portland, for appellants Town of Hampden, Town of Veazie, Town of Orono, City of Old Town, and City of Brewer

Charles E. Gilbert III, Esq. (orally), Russell Johnson Beaupain, Bangor, and Daniel J. Stevens, Esq., Stevens & Day, LLP, Augusta, for appellee Amaryllis Fisher

Penobscot County Superior Court docket number CIV-2022-86 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY

4 As a result, we also do not address the parties’ arguments regarding whether the Municipalities

waived immunity by virtue of their insurance coverage. See Wilcox, 2009 ME 53, ¶ 12, 970 A.2d 295 (explaining that pursuant to section 8116 of the MTCA, governmental entities are not immune from suit “if the claims against the governmental entity are covered by an insurance policy indemnifying the governmental entity for such claims”).