 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[W] Roberts v. New Albany Separate School District9/13/2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/01/2000
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. R. KENNETH COLEMAN
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: UNION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 09/13/2001
EN BANC
. This appeal arises from the grant of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Miss. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) in favor of the New Albany Separate School District ("New Albany") and against Patti Roberts ("Roberts") on May 1, 2000. Roberts was allegedly injured on the grounds of the New Albany Middle School on August 8, 1998. Subsequently, on August 3, 1999, Roberts sent a timely "Notice of Claim" in the form of a letter to Kenneth Quinn, superintendent of the New Albany school district. Then, on December 6, 1999, Roberts filed a complaint in the Union County Circuit Court against New Albany. Shortly thereafter, New Albany filed an answer setting out its defenses.
. On December 28, 1999, New Albany filed a motion to dismiss contending that the statute of limitations had expired and Roberts's claim was now time barred. Circuit Judge R. Kenneth Coleman held a hearing on the matter on April 4, 2000, and issued an order granting the motion on May 1, 2000. In his order, the trial judge held that the March 1999 amendment to Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-11(3) was not to be applied retroactively to a cause of action that accrued prior to the amendment's passage. As such, Roberts's complaint was filed slightly less than one month overdue and thus, barred. From that order, Roberts now appeals and asserts that the notice of claim amendment to § 11-46-11(3) of the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA) should be applied retroactively to a claim that accrued prior to the amendment when the notice of claim and complaint were filed after the date of amendment.
FACTS
. While Roberts was attending a yard sale at the New Albany Middle School, she stepped into a small hole and fractured her ankle (a left distal fibular fracture). As a result of the accident, she required surgery on her ankle and extensive physical therapy. In her complaint, Roberts alleges that there were no warnings concerning the hole and this failure to warn amounts to negligence. Therefore, Roberts filed suit seeking damages for her injuries.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
. We apply the de novo standard when reviewing the granting of a Miss. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion. Arnona v. Smith, 749 So. 2d 63, 65-66 (Miss. 1999). As such, we sit in the same position as did the trial court. Furthermore, statutory interpretation is a question of law, and we also review questions of law de novo. Donald v. Amoco Prod. Co., 735 So. 2d 161, 165 (Miss. 1999). Therefore, we are not required to defer to the trial court's judgment or ruling. In order to affirm the granting of dismissal, we must decide that Roberts failed "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Miss. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
DISCUSSION
WHETHER THE NOTICE OF CLAIM AMENDMENT TO § 11-46-11(3) OF THE MTCA SHOULD BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY TO A CLAIM THAT ACCRUED PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT WHEN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM AND COMPLAINT WERE FILED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF AMENDMENT.
. To begin, it is important to understand how the March 25, 1999, amendment affected the statute of limitations. In order to understand the impact of the change, one must be able to examine the change itself. Section 11-46-11(3)(Supp. 1998) of the Mississippi Code originally read in pertinent part:
All actions brought under the provisions of this chapter shall be commenced within one (1) year next after the date of the tortious, wrongful, or otherwise actionable
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|