 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jackson v. Daley6/3/1999
ed by statute. Coplin v. Francis, 631 So. 2d 752, 754 (Miss. 1994)(citing Leflore County v. Big Sand Drainage Dist., 383 So. 2d 501 (Miss. 1980)). As stated previously, pre-Pruett common law controls this case and dictates that counties are merely political subdivisions of the state and as such are not liable for maintenance of bridges and roads. Leflore County v. Big Sand Drainage Dist., 383 So. 2d at 502-03 (citing Brabham v. Board of Supervisors of Hinds County, 54 Miss. 363 (1877)).
.In Mohundro v. Alcorn County, 675 So. 2d 848 (Miss. 1996), Mohundro asked this Court to create an exception to sovereign immunity when the governmental entity causes the hazard. Mohundro, 675 So. 2d at 852-53. We stated in Mohundro that if a county official ". . . acted with such gross neglect or callous indifference to the safety of Mohundro and the public as a whole such that his conduct may be fairly described as constructively intentional, he is not entitled to immunity." Mohundro at 854 (emphasis added). The present facts do not give rise to liability under the Mohundro exception.
II. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN HOLDING THAT JEFFERSON DAVIS COUNTY'S POLICY WITH UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY PROVIDED COVERAGE FOR THE ACCIDENT THAT CAUSED BRYAN WADE JACKSON'S DEATH?
.At the time this cause of action arose, then existent Miss. Code Ann. § 19-7-8 provided that a county board of supervisors was authorized to purchase automobile liability insurance, that the county's sovereign immunity was waived to the extent of the coverage of the liability insurance, and that a judgment creditor had recourse only to the proceeds or right to proceeds of such liability insurance. Here, the Jefferson Davis County Board of Supervisors purchased automobile liability insurance from U.S.F.&G; The U.S.F.&G; policy provided insurance coverage for those injuries resulting from "ownership, maintenance, or use" of a county automobile. U.S.F. &G; now contends that if Jackson's accident was a result of the county's negligence then the negligence was in areas other than the "ownership, maintenance, or use" of a county automobile. Thus, they claim that their policy does not cover Jackson's accident.
.The trial court, not the jury, must determine the meaning and effect of an insurance contract if the contract is clear and unambiguous. Overstreet v. Allstate Ins. Co., 474 So. 2d 572, 575 (Miss. 1985). Further, if the language in an insurance contract is clear and unambiguous, then the court should construe it as written. Lowery v. Guaranty Bank & Trust Co., 592 So. 2d 79, 82 (Miss. 1991).
.In this case, the language in the U.S.F.&G; policy states that it will pay for bodily injury which results from "the ownership, maintenance, or use of a covered 'auto.'" Since it is obvious that the plaintiff's injuries did not result from the ownership and maintenance of the dump truck covered by the policy, the issue is whether the plaintiff's injuries were a result of the use of the dump truck.
.When a policy insures an automobile for the "use" of the automobile, the chain of causation between the use of the automobile and the injury must be direct. National Mut. Cas. Co. v. Clark, 193 Miss. 27, 7 So. 2d 800, 803 (1942). We will not extend coverage if the use of the automobile is within the line of causation, but is distinctly remote. Merchants Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 187 Miss. 301, 188 So. 571 (1939).
.The facts in the present case place it squarely under our previous decision in Merchants. In Merchants, a delivery truck belonging to the Merchants Company ran off a highway into a ditch. Merchants, 187 Miss. at 306, 188 So. at 571.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|