 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. Clay County11/13/2003
e plaintiff's complaint was timely.
She gave notice of her claim to the school district within the one- year statutory time period on August 3, 1999, tolling the statute of limitations for 120 days. One hundred twenty-five days later, after the 120- day period allowed for the school district to provide notice of denial of claim but within the subsequent 90-day period available for filing suit, Roberts filed the present action. There is no notice of denial of claim in the record so the full measure of the 120-day period runs in Roberts's favor.
Id. at 732 ( 7). The Court gave no guidance as to interpretation based on other possible facts. Additionally, it is not clear that this meant that the one-year statute of limitations would be extended for 120 days. The language used:"the full measure of the 120-day period runs in [plaintiff's] favor" seems to be based on the fact that the government did not respond to the claim within the 120 day period, not on the concept that the statute of limitations was extended for this period of time. Thus, Roberts leaves open these questions.
. Subsequent to Roberts, the Court of Appeals decided Marshall, where the plaintiff filed a claim with more than 120 days remaining of the one-year statute of limitations. The circuit court made a determination, along the same lines as that expounded by Presiding Judge Southwick in Burge, that the 120 day tolling period commenced upon the filing of notice, and the 90 day time in which an action could be brought began immediately after this. The Court of Appeals majority determined that in this fact case, the statute of limitations would actually be less than one year. Reasoning that the legislature did not shorten the statute of limitations with the 1999 modification, the Court of Appeals held that the statute "requires that a plaintiff receive, at a minimum, ninety days to file his action following the running of the one year statute of limitations." Marshall, 831 So.2d at 1213 ( 8). Presiding Judge Southwick concurred with this result, but reiterated his earlier discussion in Burge, stating that the statute of limitations could be shorter than one year. Id. at 1214-15.
. Finally, in Moore v. Memorial Hospital of Gulfport, 825 So.2d 658 (Miss. 2002), this Court stated that "the one year statute of limitations is tolled for 120 days after the filing of the notice of claim. Therefore, if the cause of action accrued on August 31, 1998, the amended complaint which was filed on December 16, 1999, was timely." Id. at 666-67. This Court did not make a distinction here whether the timing of the notice was important, or if it was following the rule formulated by the Court of Appeals in Marshall. This case was similar to Roberts in that the statutory notice was filed within the 120 day period prior to the running of the statute of limitations, and the suit was filed within the 90 day period after the 120 day period ran. The suit was also filed within one year and ninety days from the cause of action. The Moore opinion does not support this Court's majority opinion in the present case, which states that the statute of limitations may be shortened to less than one year. In fact, the Court in Moore cited Hollingsworth ex rel. McDonald v. City of Laurel, 808 So.2d 950 (Miss. 2002), for the proposition that "where an amended statute remedially lengthens a statute of limitations, [this Court] will apply the amendment to existing causes." Id. at 667 n.8 (referring to the 1999 amendment to 11-46-11).
Hollingsworth is unclear as to when the statutory notice was given, so it does not help determine the tolling question in early notice cases.
. In the present case, whether notice is deter
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.
|
|