 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Malone v. Capital Correctional Resources2/28/2002
Miss. 732, 132 So. 573 (1931)). In Choctaw, Inc. v. Wichner, 521 So. 2d 878, 880 (Miss. 1988), we said, " nder the general rules of statutory construction the construction placed upon the statute by this Court, which was later readopted, in effect becomes part of the legislation." We stated in Crosby v. Alton Ochsner Med. Found., 276 So. 2d 661, 670 (Miss.1973), " he construction that we have placed on the ... statute has in effect been approved by the legislature.... decision of this Court interpreting the statutes becomes in effect a part of the statute."(emphasis added). This Court has never adopted the construction urged by today's majority. Hence, the rule of reenactment is not applicable. Hays, a federal opinion interpreting state law, is not binding on the courts of this state. Neither should we consider it binding evidence of the intent of our Legislature.
. Furthermore, it is important to note that, subsequent to Hays, the federal courts moved away from the Hays holding. In fact, the Fifth Circuit refused to extend Hays in Rogers v. Ray Gardner Flying Serv., Inc., 435 F.2d 1389, 1394 (5th Cir. 1970), construing 49 U.S.C. § 40102 (32) on which § 61-1-3(j) is patterned, concluding it was not Congress's intention to expand tort liability. Section 61-1-3(j) should not be construed to expand tort liability further than the federal courts have done with virtually identical statutory language.
. The modern trend against holding absent owners vicariously liable is thoroughly analyzed in Brown v. Astron Enters., Inc., 989 F. Supp. 1399 (N.D. Ala. 1997) (rejecting Allegheny Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 504 F.2d 104, 114-15 (7th Cir. 1974); Hays v. Morgan, 221 F.2d 481, 482-83 (5th Cir. 1955); Lamasters v. Snodgrass, 85 N.W.2d 622, 625 (Iowa 1957); Hoebee v. Howe, 97 A.2d 223, 223-26 (N.H. 1953); and Ross v. Apple, 241 N.E.2d 872 (Ind. Ct. App. 1968)). See also Sanz v. Renton Aviation, Inc., 511 F.2d 1027, 1029 (9th Cir. 1975) (holding such statutes were "merely intended to subject owners equally with pilot to the rules, regulations, and penalties provided in the Act, and not to make them civilly responsible for pilot lessee negligence"); Rosdail v. Western Aviation, Inc., 297 F. Supp. 681, 684-85 (D. Colo. 1969) (same). In my view, the modern trend reflects the better interpretation of statutes such as § 61-1-3(j). The circuit court did not err in its grant of summary judgment and its denial of the cross-motion for summary judgment. I would affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
COBB, J., JOINS THIS OPINION.
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.
|
|