 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Robinson v. Hosemann5/26/2005
the unasserted claims under the MTCA results in the Plaintiff engaging in claim splitting. Alternatively, Robinson and Turner also argue that the one year statute of limitations under Miss. Code Ann. ยง 11-46-11(3) has long since expired as Hosemann never commenced any action against Hinds County, Mississippi, or the Hinds County Sheriff's Department.
DISCUSSION
. Robinson and Turner contend that res judicata operates to bar multiplicity of litigation. Robinson and Turner submit that the trial court erred in allowing setting trial on MTCA claims when Hosemann specifically did not pursue any MTCA claims, instead suing them for actions taken outside the scope of their employment and seeking punitive damages. Hosemann clearly stated that the MTCA was inapplicable to the proceedings. Based on the trial court's order, Hosemann now is given the opportunity to switch arguments and make a claim against Robinson and Turner under the MTCA. In Johnson v. Howell, 592 So.2d 998, 1002 (Miss. 1991), this Court explained the application of the doctrine of res judicata, stating:
We have stated the rule of res judicata as, " final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties and their privies from relitigating claims that were or could have been raised in that action." Walton v. Bourgeois, 512 So.2d 698, 701 (Miss. 1987) (citing Dunaway v. W. H. Hopper and Associates, Inc., 422 So.2d 749, 751 (Miss. 1982)). (emphasis added).
. In Estate of Anderson v. Deposit Guaranty National Bank, 674 So.2d 1254, 1256 (Miss. 1996), this Court state the four identities that must be present for the doctrine of res judicata to apply:
(1) identity of the subject matter, (2) identity of the cause of action, (3) identity of the parties, and (4) identity of the quality or character of a person against whom a complaint is made. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Berry, 669 So.2d 56, 66-67 (Miss. 1996); Dunaway v. W.H. Hopper & Assocs., 422 So.2d 749, 751 (Miss. 1982).
. Here, the facts clearly prove that the four identities which must be present before res judicata will be applied to bar an action were met.
. Therefore, since the non-jury trial on MTCA claims is barred by the doctrine of res judicata, there is no need for the Court to address the other assignments of error raised by Robinson and Turner.
CONCLUSION
. We find that the judgment of the Warren County Circuit Court to set Hosemann's alleged Mississippi Torts Claim Act claims for non-jury trial against Turner and Robinson should be reversed and rendered in favor of Turner and Robinson. The trial court's decision to set MTCA claims for a non-jury trial is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The holding of this opinion further disposes of Turner and Robinson's Petition for Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus and /or for Writ of Prohibition or Other Relief.
. REVERSED AND RENDERED; PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF AND/OR WRIT OF PROHIBITION IS DENIED.
SMITH, C.J., CARLSON, GRAVES, DICKINSON AND RANDOLPH, JJ., CONCUR. WALLER AND COBB, P.JJ., CONCUR IN RESULT ONLY.
DIAZ, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
Page 1 2 3 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|