 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. Clay County11/13/2003
ring, and compensation for the clothing that was ruined in the fall.
. On March 25, 2001, Clay County filed a Motion to Dismiss claiming that Williams' pre-suit notice did not meet the required format and/or timing of the Tort Claims Act and did not toll the statute of limitations. They argued that, since the accident occurred on November 1, 1999, and the complaint was not filed until January 31, 2001, the one-year statute of limitations had expired. The trial judge granted Clay County's motion. Aggrieved by this decision, Williams appeals, citing the following three issues, edited for clarity, for resolution by this Court:
I. WHETHER WILLIAMS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENT OF THE MISSISSIPPI TORT CLAIMS ACT?
(a) Effect of the Act's Tolling Provisions
II. WHETHER WILLIAMS SUFFERED A LATENT INJURY THAT EFFECTIVELY TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS?
III. WHETHER CLAY COUNTY SHOULD BE EQUITABLY ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS RUN BECAUSE THEY PROMISED WILLIAMS THEY WOULD PAY HER MEDICAL BILLS?
. A motion to dismiss under M.R.C.P.12(b)(6) raises an issue of law. Arnona v. Smith, 749 So.2d 63, 65 (Miss. 1999) (citing Tucker v. Hinds County, 558 So.2d 869 (Miss. 1990)). Consequently, this Court reviews such motions de novo . Id. (citing UHS- Qualicare, Inc. v. Gulf Coast Cmty. Hosp., Inc., 525 So.2d 746, 754 (Miss. 1987)). When considering a motion to dismiss, the allegations in the complaint must be taken as true and the motion should not be granted unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff will be unable to prove any set of facts in support of his claim. Id. Further, this Court stated in Weeks v. Thomas, 662 So.2d 581 (Miss.1995), that in order to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the complaint need only state a set of facts that will allow the plaintiff "some relief in court." Id. at 583. Additionally, " he Supreme Court reviews errors of law, which include the proper application of the Mississippi Tort Claims Act, de novo ." Fairley v. George County, 800 So. 2d 1159, 1162 (Miss. 2001). As such, we sit in the same position as did the trial court.
1. WHETHER WILLIAM SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENT OF THE MISSISSIPPI TORT CLAIMS ACT?
. The Mississippi Tort Claims Act, 11-46-1 (the Act) diminished the sovereign immunity protection available for our state government. The Act allows a plaintiff to sue a governmental entity, provided the action is brought within one year of the injury (discovery rule applies) and proper notice of the claim is given to the governmental entity. See 11-46-11. The Act lists the specific elements of a proper notice, as follows:
2) Every notice of claim required by subsection (1) of this section shall be in writing, and shall be delivered in person or by registered or certified United States mail. Every notice of claim shall contain a short and plain statement of the facts upon which the claim is based, including the circumstances which brought about the injury , the extent of the injury, the time and place the injury occurred, the names of all persons known to be involved, the amount of money damages sought and the residence of the person making the claim at the time of the injury and at the time of filing the notice.
Miss. Code Ann. 11-46-11(2) (Supp. 2001). Prior to 1998, this Court required strict compliance with the Act's detailed notice requirements. See Holmes v. Defer, 722 So. 2d 624 (Miss. 1998); City of Jackson v. Lumpkin, 697 So. 2d 1179 (Miss. 1997); Carpenter v. Dawson, 701 So. 2d 806 (Miss. 1977). However, in December 1998, this Court handed down Reaves ex rel. Rouse v. Randall
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.
|
|