Hall v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety4/9/1998
dgment in his favor based on a res ipsa loquitur theory. However, where the elements of res ipsa loquitur are met, the finder of fact may, but is not bound to, infer negligence on the defendant's part. After hearing all of the evidence presented by both parties, the trial Judge specifically found that there was no act or omission on the state employee's part that caused the patrol car to roll forward. Since the trial Judge's finding is based upon substantial evidence in the record, this decision is not manifestly wrong and will not be overturned by this Court on appeal.
Lastly, Hall contends that pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-16, MDPS has waived its immunity for wrongful or tortious acts, to the extent of the upper limits of any liability insurance purchased. However, Hall does not provide any evidence that MDPS had a liability insurance policy in effect at the time of the accident and if so, that such policy would cover the conditions under which the accident occurred. Moreover, the trial Judge specifically found that there were no acts or omissions on the state employee 's part that caused the patrol vehicle to roll forward. Therefore, the required wrongful or tortious acts were not present in this case, rendering the statutory provisions relied upon by Hall inapplicable.
Accordingly, the trial court's decision that MDPS is immune from liability for Hall's injuries is affirmed.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
PRATHER, C.J., PITTMAN, P.J., BANKS, ROBERTS AND MILLS, JJ., CONCUR. WALLER, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY SULLIVAN, P.J., AND McRAE , J.
WALLER, JUSTICE, DISSENTING:
On the odd set of facts before us, the trial Judge was correct in finding that no liability would lie against the Mississippi Department of Public Safety ("MDPS") on a negligence claim involving any negligence on the part of Officer Cox. However, Hall's claim was advanced pursuant to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Based upon the arguments made at trial, the issue of the failure to properly maintain the vehicle as the cause of Hall's injury, clearly a ministerial duty, was raised. Therefore, Hall's claim against the MDPS falls within an exception of our sovereign immunity statute, which, thereby, negates MDPS's sovereign immunity protection.
The " nterpretation of statutes is a matter of law. .. " Hernandez v. Vickery Chevrolet-Oldsmobile; Co.. 652 So. 2d 179, 182 (Miss. 1995). Furthermore, " his Court must review questions of law de novo." Gibson v. Board of Supervisors of Calhoun City, 656 So. 2d 312, 314 (Miss. 1995 (citing Harrison v. City of Gulfport, 557 So. 2d 780, 784 (Miss. 1990); Cole v. National Life Ins., 549 So. 2d 1301, 1303 (Miss. 1989); Busching v. Griffin, 542 So. 2d 860, 863 (Miss. 1989); Boggs v. Eaton, 379 So. 2d 520, 522 (Miss. 1980)).
The Judge's order in the instant case deals only with the purported negligence of the MDPS as it related to the actions of Officer Cox and absolves that issue with a correct interpretation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-46-9 (1) (c). Finding the aforementioned statute to be dispositive of the case, a finding which means that any liability, whether under the theory of res ipsa loquitur or common law negligence, to MDPS by Officer Cox is negated by sovereign immunity. What the Judge failed to address and consider in his order was any negligence on the part of MDPS with regard to a failure to properly maintain the vehicle involved in the incident which injured Hall.
The applicable statute as to this issue is Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-46-9 (1) (d)(Supp. 1997) which states:
(1) A governmental entity and its employees acting wi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|