 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Heirs and Beneficiaries of Branning v. Hinds Community College District4/8/1999
for Tomlinson to risk of other persons' lives in his own intoxicated hands. Punitive damages are warranted. In fact, " primary purpose in imposing punitive damages is to punish one engaging in grossly negligent conduct and to serve as a warning to such person and others not to engage in similar conduct in the future." James W. Sessums Timber Co. v. McDaniel, 635 So. 2d 875, 880 (Miss. 1994).
. Of relevance to the analysis of Tomlinson's behavior is Mississippi Code Annotated § 11-46-9 (Supp. 1998), which states in pertinent part:
"(1) A governmental entity and its employees acting within the course and scope of their employment or duties shall not be liable for any claim: ". . . . "(b) Arising out of any act or omission of an employee of a governmental entity exercising ordinary care in reliance upon, or in the execution or performance of, or in the failure to execute or perform, a statute, ordinance or regulation, whether or not the statute, ordinance or regulation be valid; "See id. So, § 11-46-9(1)(b) exempts the government from liability for exercise of ordinary care by its employees, but drinking then flying is by no means an exercise of ordinary care. Hence, Tomlinson's behavior is such that his employer , Hinds Community College District, is liable. Further, Hinds's liability extends to the amount of its insurance." See Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-17(4).
. For the foregoing reasons, I would reverse the summary judgment and remand the case for trial. Accordingly, I Dissent.
|