Fair v. Town of Friars Point, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-02350-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-30-2006 Opinion Author: KING, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Tort Claims Act - Discovery - Duty of ordinary care - Section 93-21-27 - Reckless disregard - Section 11-46-9(1)(c) Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-14-2004 Appealed from: Coahoma County Circuit Court Judge: Larry O. Lewis Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS Case Number: 14-CI-03-0035 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | DOROTHY J. FAIR, ADMINSTRATRIX OF THE
ESTATE OF LECIA FAIR JONES, DECEASED, AND
JAMES WASHINGTON, AS NEXT OF KIN AND ON
BEHALF OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH
BENEFICIARIES OF LECIA FAIR JONES,
DECEASED |
DEREK D. HOPSON, NANCY ALLEN WEGENER |
||
| Appellee: | TOWN OF FRIARS POINT, MISSISSIPPI, AND ANTHONY SMITH, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE TOWN OF FRIARS POINT, MISSISSIPPI | BENJAMIN E. GRIFFITH, DANIEL JUDSON GRIFFITH |
|
|
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: | Tort Claims Act - Discovery - Duty of ordinary care - Section 93-21-27 - Reckless disregard - Section 11-46-9(1)(c) |
| Summary of the Facts: | After Terry Dukes stabbed Lecia Jones to death, the Administratrix of Jones’ estate and Jones’ next of kin filed their amended complaint in which they alleged that the town of Friars Point and its chief of police acted with reckless disregard in handling Dukes’ arrest and by allowing him to go free and later murder Jones. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Friars Point, and the Estate appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Discovery The Estate argues that the court abused its discretion in denying it leave to take the deposition of Vera Willis, Dukes’ parole officer. The Estate had until February 8, 2004, at the latest to supplement its brief in response to Friars Point’s second motion to dismiss. The Estate missed the deadline for filing supplemental briefing, and on April 14, 2004, moved for leave to take the deposition of Willis. In addition to missing the deadline for replying to the Friars Point’s second motion to dismiss, the Estate gave no specific reason for her delay in deposing Willis, although the filings show that the Estate was aware of Willis’ involvement for at least six months prior to seeking leave. Also, the Estate failed to show how Willis’ testimony was relevant to Friars Point’s alleged legal duty or liability. Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion. Issue 2: Duty The Estate argues that Friars Point breached its duty of ordinary care owed to Jones, thereby exposing Friars Point to liability. Even if the officers owed a duty to Jones, section 93-21-27 specifically provides immunity to the officers. Although the Estate argues that according to section 11-46-9(1)(b) Friars Point waived immunity because it failed to exercise ordinary care with respect to several statutory duties, Friars Point is entitled to immunity under subpart (c) which provides a reckless disregard standard for police officers and firefighters. Reckless disregard is defined as willful or wanton conduct, i.e., a wrongful act that is knowing and intentional. The record illustrates that the officers did not exercise reckless disregard when they chose to charge Dukes with simple assault. The officer was apparently unaware that an aggressor may be charged with domestic violence if that person commits an assault upon one with whom they formerly resided. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
