CRAWFORD v. CUSTOM SIGN CO.
| Docket Number: | NO. 2011-CA-00120-SCT CONSOLIDATED WITH 2007-CA-00322-SCT & 2006-CA-00185-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-27-2014 Opinion Author: Justice Pierce Holding: Reversed and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Statute of repose - Section 15-1-41 - Ownership |
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Personal injury - Statute of repose - Section 15-1-41 - Ownership |
| Summary of the Facts: | Alex Jordan, while employed by Morris Transportation, was driving an eighteen wheel tractor trailer. He stopped the tractor-trailer in the inner northbound lane of the road to inspect a sign affixed to an underpass before attempting to proceed through the underpass. Michael Crawford was traveling in the same lane and was unable to avoid crashing into the eighteen-wheeler. The sign hanging from the underpass had been made by the Custom Sign Company. Crawford filed suit against Jordan, Morris Transportation, and Custom. Eventually, Crawford settled with Jordan and Morris Transportation. Custom filed a motion for summary judgment which the trial court granted. Crawford appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The trial court granted Custom’s motion for summary judgment based on the statute of repose. Crawford argues that the statute of repose does not apply. Section 15-1-41, the statute of repose, provides that that there must be written acceptance, occupancy, or use of the improvement by the owner. Here, neither party has adequately shown who the actual owner of the viaduct is. The record indicates that an assumption has been made stating that the viaduct is owned by the state rather than by the City of Clarksdale; however, no evidence has been submitted affirming the assumption. Additionally, testimony differs as to who was responsible for obtaining a permit to hang the sign, and even the existence of an actual permit. For the elements of the statute of repose to be satisfied, ownership of the viaduct must be established. Thus, the trial court erred by not finding the ownership of the property to be a genuine issue of material fact. Additionally, whether the statute of repose may be asserted by Custom as a defense cannot be decided without establishing that Custom was responsible for the design, planning, supervision of construction, or construction to real property. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
