 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Conrod v. Holder8/15/2002
bdivision employer has been eliminated as a defendant." Cotton v. Paschall, 782 So.2d 1215, 1218 (Miss. 2001). In a case interpreting Miss. Code Ann. §11-46-7, handed down this year, the Mississippi Court of Appeals noted that "the Tort Claims Act requires that a governmental entity against which a money judgment is sought must be named as a defendant." Mallery v. Taylor, 805 So.2d 613, 622 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002). That case further observes that "unless the action is brought solely against an employee acting outside of the scope of his employment, the government entity must be named and sued as the party in interest under the Tort Claims Act." Id.
. The complaint in this case only named Sheriff Ned Holder and Deputy Stevie Little as defendants. The plaintiffs did not name Sunflower County as a defendant. Further, the complaint alleges, not that Sheriff Holder acted outside the course of his duties, but that he was negligent in the conduct of his duties by not having properly trained personnel. The trial court was correct in granting summary judgment in this case because Miss. Code Ann. §11-46-7(2) requires a political subdivision be sued when seeking damages for negligence. The plaintiffs in this case failed to do so; and therefore, the granting of summary judgment was correct.
. Another grounds for upholding the grant of summary judgment is that Deputy Little was not named as a defendant in this case until well after the statute of limitations had run. Section 11-46-11(3) of the MTCA maintains that "all actions brought under the provisions of this chapter shall be commenced within one (1) year next after the date of the tortious, wrongful or otherwise actionable conduct on which the liability phase of the action is based." Miss. Code Ann. §11-46-11(3).
. In this case, Deputy Stevie Little was not named in the action filed in federal district court within the statute of limitations. Further, no notice of an action was given to Stevie Little until a full two years after the alleged conduct. Therefore, the action in this case was not only barred by the plaintiffs failing to meet the requirements of naming a governmental entity as a defendant; as to Stevie Little, the action was barred by the statute of limitations.
CONCLUSION
. The trial court correctly granted summary judgment in this case because the plaintiffs failed to name a governmental entity in their complaint against Sheriff Holder and Deputy Little, as required by the Mississippi Tort Claims Act. Also, any action against Deputy Little was time barred by the applicable statute of limitations under the MTCA. Therefore, the grant of summary judgment by the trial court is affirmed.
. AFFIRMED.
PITTMAN, C.J., McRAE, P.J., COBB, DIAZ, EASLEY, CARLSON AND GRAVES, JJ., CONCUR.
WALLER, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
|