 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety4/9/1998
THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED, PURSUANT TO M.R.A.P. 35-A
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/03/96
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. KOSTA N. VLAHOS
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
On September 9, 1993, Plaintiff James Hall was stopped by Mississippi Highway Patrolman, Officer Mike Cox, on suspicions that Hall was driving under the influence of alcohol. After stopping Hall on the shoulder of Interstate 10 in Hancock County, Officer Cox parked his patrol vehicle approximately seven (7) to fifteen (15) feet behind Hall's vehicle. Cox's patrol vehicle was a canine unit and he left the car motor running to keep the dog at a certain temperature.
Cox and Hall stood at the rear of Hall's vehicle between the two cars for approximately fifteen minutes while Officer Cox administered an intoxilyzer exam to Hall, arrested and handcuffed him, and asked him to sit on the rear of his (Hall's) car. Cox advised Hall to remain calm and not try to run because, if need be, he would let the dog out of the patrol vehicle. Cox testified that the canine could be released from the car through a remote control device located on his gun belt. Cox then walked to the front of Hall's car to question the passenger.
While Officer Cox was questioning the passenger of Hall's vehicle, Cox's patrol car rolled towards Hall's car. Hall put his right leg up in an effort to stop the car but was unable to do so and his left leg was pinned between the two cars. Hall stated that he did not move from between the two vehicles because he was afraid the officer would release the dog from the patrol vehicle. Officer Cox heard Hall yell and proceeded to the back of Hall's car, pushed the car back with his hand and then got in the car to back it up. Officer Cox stated that the patrol car's gear shift indicator was in the "park" position when he re-entered the vehicle. Hall was treated at Hancock Medical Center for a fracture of the left fibula and released the following day.
The patrol vehicle had been maintained by Ronnie's Automotive. The service records were introduced and revealed no extraordinary events with respect to that vehicle during the service and maintenance history. Officer Cox also testified that there were no other instances where the vehicle had rolled forward with the gear shift positioned in "park." After the accident, Ronnie inspected the linkage on the vehicle but found no leaks or other aberrations relative to the transmission. According to testimony of Fred King, a Ford Motor Company employee who had examined the patrol vehicle after the accident, there was no design or mechanical defect which would account for the vehicle's having rolled forward while still in "park."
Hall filed this action on August 17, 1994, seeking relief from the Mississippi Department of Public Safety (MDPS) for his injuries.(1) On August 22, 1994, Hall filed an Amended Complaint seeking recovery on the theories of strict liability, negligence, and res ipsa loquitur. MDPS filed an Answer generally denying liability and later filed an Amended Answer raising the sovereign immunity provisions contained in Miss. Code Ann. 11-46-1 et seq. as a defense to liability. In December of 1994, Hanover Insurance Company was added by amendment to the Amended Complaint as a party defendant. However, the claim against Hanover was bifurcated upon Order of the trial court on June 10, 1996. Ford Motor Company was subsequently joined as a party defendant in June of 1995, but was ultimately dismissed by consent Order.
A bench trial on the merits was conducted on June 24, 1996. At
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|