Barr v. Hancock County
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-01573-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-27-2007 Opinion Author: KING, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Tort Claims Act - Discretionary duty - Section 65-21-1 Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-23-2005 Appealed from: Hancock County Circuit Court Judge: Roger T. Clark Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT ENTERED FOR HANCOCK COUNTY. Case Number: 03-0472 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | HAROLD BARR |
WILLIAM COMPTON HELM |
||
| Appellee: | HANCOCK COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI | TRACE D. MCRANEY |
|
|
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 - Tort Claims Act - Discretionary duty - Section 65-21-1 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Harold Barr sustained personal injuries when he fell from his bicycle while riding on or near Leake Street in Hancock County. Hancock County recently had either installed or upgraded a culvert on that street to address a drainage problem. Once the work on the culvert was completed, Hancock County backfilled the gap in the road with a dirt mixture. Barr filed a complaint, alleging that Hancock County was negligent in failing to ensure that the roadway was safe and in good condition and in failing to discover and warn Barr of defects and unsafe conditions in the roadway. Hancock County filed a motion for summary judgment which the court granted. Barr appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Hancock County argues that the decision to backfill the area around the culvert was a discretionary function and that Hancock County is immune from liability. Barr argues that the placement of a culvert is a ministerial function of government. Section 65-21-1 plainly states that certain construction requirements must be met once a governmental entity determines that a culvert is needed. Additionally, the statute only sets forth the minimum requirements to be met with regard to the construction of culverts. Any decisions made outside of those minimum requirements are discretionary functions of government. Road maintenance and repair have long been held to be a discretionary function of government. While the placement of a warning sign at the culvert would be considered a ministerial function, as set forth in section 65-21-1, Barr can cite no facts which would support a finding that Hancock County’s failure to set up a warning sign proximately caused his injury. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
