 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. Clay County11/13/2003
expiration of the one-year SOL, then filed her complaint within the additional 95 day period. This Court found that procedure proper. Id. at 202-03.
. In State v. Dampeer 744 So.2d 754, 756 (Miss. 1999), this Court held "when the proper requirements of bringing a claim for injury against a governmental agency in the State of Mississippi are met, including the giving of the proper notice, the statute of limitations allows one year, plus ninety-five days in which to bring the claim." (emphasis added).
. In Chamberlin v. City of Hernando, 716 So.2d 596 (Miss.1998), this Court held that " he Act directs that all actions against political subdivisions shall be filed within one year of accrual. The only way the statute allows the extension of the one-year statute is to file the required notice of claim." Id. at 601 (emphasis added).
. In Tie-Reace Hollingsworth ex rel. McDonald v. City of Laurel, 808 So.2d 950, (Miss. 2002), this Court held that " the amendment lengthening the statute of limitations for claims brought under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act applies to causes of action accruing before the amendment was enacted which were not barred by the prior statute of limitations." Id. at 955 (emphasis added).
. Use of the words "extension" and "lengthening"in the above cases signifies that the SOL is not cut short by the giving of notice, but rather it is extended an additional 90 days following the 120 day tolling period.
. In Burge v. Richton Municipal Separate School Dist., 797 So.2d 1062 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001), the Court of Appeals refused to allow a plaintiff to take advantage of the amendments to the additional time period allowable under the Act because these amendments were not yet in effect when the plaintiff's negligence claim against the school district accrued. The Court of Appeals discussed the effect of the tolling provisions of the Act, stating:
The action in this case accrued on December 17, 1998, the day that Lea walked onto school grounds and removed her daughter without a court order. The one-year statute of limitations in which to file a claim against the school district for its negligence would have run on December 17, 1999. However, it is undisputed that a notice of claim was timely and properly filed by the Burges according to Miss . Code Ann. 11- 46- 11(1) (Supp.2000). Therefore, the statute of limitations on this action would be tolled for ninety-five days after December 17, 1999, which would have allowed the Burges to filed their claim up until March 21, 2000. After March 21, 2000, the Burges' claim was lost.
While it would appear, at first glance, from the amendments to 11-46-11(3) found in the 2000 supplement, that the Burges would then have had an additional ninety days after March 21, 2000, to file the action against the school district, thereby giving them until June 19, 2000, this is not the case. Miss.Code Ann. 11-46-11(3) (Supp.2000). As well, it is not the case that the Burges could argue that the minors' savings clause under Miss.Code Ann. 11-46-11(4) (Supp.2000) would save their action here. Both of these provisions were not yet in effect at the time the action occurred on December 17, 1998. 797 So.2d at 1062-64.
. This quote implies that, if proper notice is given, the tolling provision simply tacks an additional 95 or 120 days on to the one-year SOL. The amendments not yet in effect in Burge were in effect in the case sub judice. Their effect in this case would have been to add 90 days to the one-year SOL after the expiration of the 120 day tolling/safe harbor provision. Thus, provided she gave sufficient notice, Williams had until May 30, 2001, to file her complaint (or o
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.
|
|