 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety4/9/1998
a new hearing. Therefore, I respectfully Dissent.
SULLIVAN, P.J., AND McRAE, J., JOIN THIS OPINION.
1. There is no information in the record regarding whether Hall complied with the notice provisions set out in Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-11, which was in effect at the time of Hall's accident. See City of Jackson v. Lumpkin, 697 So. 2d 1179 (Miss. 1997) (judgment vacated and cause of action dismissed for plaintiff's failure to comply with notice requirements). However, since it was not raised by MDPS and the trial court's ruling that the state is immune from liability is affirmed, this issue will not be discussed.
2. This statute was designated as 11-46-9(c) at the time of Hall's accident. However, the current designation will be referred to in this opinion, since there is no material difference between the two versions.
3. This statute was designated as 11-46-9(d) at the time of Hall's accident. However, the current designation will be referred to in this opinion, since there is no material difference between the two versions.
4. There has been no change to this statute since the time of Hall's accident.
5. The majority asserts that Hall did not raise the discretionary versus ministerial issue at trial. Hall did raise the negligent maintenance of the police car at trial, an issue which clearly implicates the discretionary versus ministerial distinction.
6. The defense, in its proposed findings and Conclusions, admitted as much.
|