 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jones v. Mississippi Department of Transportation6/11/1999
CONSOLIDATED WITH NO. 1998-CA-01211-SCT
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/11/1998
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ELZY JONATHAN SMITH, JR.
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: TUNICA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED - 6/10/1999
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
. Here we are asked to determine whether the MDOT's and a county's failure to place traffic control devices on a road is a discretionary act under the Tort Claims Act entitling the county to immunity from appellants' suit to recover for injuries sustained in an automobile accident on the road. We conclude that, although the failure to place the traffic control devices was a discretionary act, the MDOT and the county had a duty to warn motorists of a dangerous condition of which it had knowledge. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.
I.
. On January 29, 1995, Lottie Still ("Still") and Sarah Jones ("Jones") were injured in an one-vehicle accident as Still was driving along Bowden Lost Lake Road in Tunica County. Jones was a passenger in the vehicle. Irwin Place Road, which had recently been reopened after a construction project, intersected with Bowden Lost Lake Road to form a "T" intersection. There was no STOP sign at the end of Bowden Lost Lake Road nor were there any traffic control signs warning oncoming traffic that they were approaching a "T" intersection. Upon reaching the intersection Still failed to stop the vehicle or to maneuver a right or left turn. Still crossed the intersection, crashing her car into a ditch.
. Separate actions were filed by Jones and Still against Mississippi Department of Transportation, Tunica County and Tunica County Board of Supervisors. James Still, husband of Mrs. Still, joined in the action with his wife seeking to recover for loss of consortium. Jones and the Stills claim that the defendants negligently failed to erect traffic control signs warning of the "T" intersection and/or a STOP sign. Jones and the Stills also claim that such failure caused the accident and resulted in their respective injuries.
. MDOT and Tunica County filed Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss. The trial court consolidated Jones's and the Stills' actions and entered an Order granting MDOT's and Tunica County's motions to dismiss. The trial court found that the placement of traffic control signs was a discretionary function and as such the defendants were immune from suit pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. ยง 11-46-9 (d)(Supp. 1998).
II.
a.
. In considering whether to grant a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the trial court must take the '"pleaded allegations of the complaint as true and a dismissal should not be granted unless it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which entitles him to relief."' Butler v. Board of Sup'rs, 659 So. 2d 578, 581 (Miss. 1995) (quoting Overstreet v. Merlos, 570 So. 2d 1196, 1197 (Miss.1990)). The same standard is applied on appeal when considering the propriety of the trial court's granting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. McFadden v. State, 542 So. 2d 871, 874-75 (Miss. 1989).
b.
. Jones and the Stills raise the issue of whether the placement of traffic control devices was a discretionary act entitling MDOT and Tunica County to protection from suit under the Tort Claims Act. Jones and the Stills claim that the placement of traffic control devices is mandated by statute and therefore is not covered under the discretionary acts exemption to the Tort Claims Act; MDOT and Tunica
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|