 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. Clay County11/13/2003
, 729 So. 2d 1237 (Miss. 1998). In Reaves, the Court announced a substantial compliance test for determining whether proper claim notice had been given. The Court stated:
The Mississippi Tort Claims Act stands in contrast to the old common law principle of sovereign immunity where an injured party was barred from recovery against a political subdivision. The Act was adopted to reduce the harsh effect of the common law. We have held that statutes such as this should be read reasonably.
729 So. 2d at 1240. The Court continued: "In order to carry out the legislative purpose of providing relief to injured citizens, we hold that substantial compliance with the notice provisions of the Act is sufficient." Id. This position was reaffirmed in Carr v. Town of Shubuta, 733 So. 2d 261 (Miss. 1999), which specifically overruled Lumpkin, Carpenter, and Defer to the extent they were in conflict. Id., at 263.
. Section 11-46-11(1) was amended by the Mississippi Legislature on March 15, 1999 in response to the Reaves and Carr decisions. That amendment expanded the number of officials allowed to receive notice of claim under section 11-46-11(1) to include, inter alia, the county chancery clerk if the entity sued is a county. Prior to the 1999 amendments, filing the notice tolled the SOL for 95 days, and the action was timely so long as the complaint was filed no later than one year and 95 days after it arose. Miss. Code Ann. 11-46-11 (Supp. 1998). See also State v. Dampeer, 744 So. 2d 754 ( 8) (Miss. 1999). The amended statute, however, provides for a 120 day tolling period upon notice of claim, followed by an additional 90 day grace period for a claimant to file suit. Miss. Code Ann. 11-46-11 (Supp. 2001).
. Williams has alleged that she gave notice of her claim to both the chancery clerk and to two members of the Board of Supervisors. If this is true (and on a 12(b) (6) dismissal we must assume that it is), notice was given to the proper party under the Act. Thus, resolution of this issue depends upon whether Williams' actions constituted substantial compliance with the Act's notice requirements, or whether, as Clay County asserts, they failed in that regard, and a fortiori the action is barred by the one-year SOL.
. "Notice provisions encourage settlement of claims prior to entering litigation, therefore conserving valuable governmental resources. Further, notice to the governmental entity encourages corrective actions, where necessary, prior to litigation, therefore benefitting public health and welfare." Vortice v. Fordice, 711 So.2d 894, 896 (Miss. 1998). "The purpose of the Act is to insure that governmental boards, commissioners, and agencies are informed of claims against them." Reaves, 729 So.2d at 1240. As will be shown, Clay County was adequately informed of Williams' claim against it.
. Williams points to Robinson's assistance to her after her fall, the November 1999 letter she wrote Robinson reminding him of the fall and requesting reimbursement for her torn pantsuit, the March 16, 2000 meeting with two supervisors, and the subsequent promise by the County, through Robinson, to pay her medical bills. She argues that these events constituted substantial compliance with the notice requirement, and thus, effectively tolled the SOL. She argues that these allegations, taken as true, preclude a 12 (b)(6) dismissal on statute of limitations grounds, as her claim would not have been time barred until March 1, 2001.
. In Carr, we stressed that the determination of substantial compliance is a legal as well as fact sensitive inquiry which must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Carr v. Town of Shubuta, 733 So.2d 261, 265 (Miss. 1999).
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|