Willingham v. Miss. Transp. Comm'n


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-CA-01997-COA
Oral Argument: 09-13-2006
 

 

* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users).


Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 12-12-2006
Opinion Author: IRVING, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Personal injury - Tort Claims Act - Duty to warn - Section 63-3-303 - Section 11-46-9(1)(d) - Open and obvious danger - Sections 11-46-9(1)(v) and (w)
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ.
Concurs in Result Only: BARNES, J.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 09-30-2005
Appealed from: Coahoma County Circuit Court
Judge: Kenneth L. Thomas
Disposition: DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED.
Case Number: 14-CI-03-0032

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: JIMMY WILLINGHAM, LOREAN WILLINGHAM AND NATALIE DOWNS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF AUDLEY JACK DOWNS, JR., DECEASED




JOHN H. COCKE, ROBERT Q. WHITWELL



 

Appellee: MISSISSIPPI TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROY JEFFERSON ALLEN  

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 - Duty to warn - Section 63-3-303 - Section 11-46-9(1)(d) - Open and obvious danger - Sections 11-46-9(1)(v) and (w)

Summary of the Facts: Jimmy Willingham, Lorean Willingham, and Natalie Downs sued the Mississippi Transportation Commission for injuries and death resulting from a two-vehicle collision on a state highway. The court found that there were no genuine issues of material fact and granted summary judgment on behalf of the MTC. The plaintiffs appeal.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: The plaintiffs argue that the MTC has a statutory duty to place warning signs, per section 63-3-303, to warn drivers that hydroplaning was a danger during heavy rainfall. The clear meaning of the section is to create a statutory duty that must be carried out in a discretionary matter. In general, when an official is required to use his own judgment or discretion in performing a duty, that duty is discretionary. The phrase “as it shall deem necessary” in the statute indicates that the MTC’s employees must use their own judgment or discretion in choosing where and when to place warning signs. Because the MTC’s duty is discretionary, the MTC’s failure to place warning signs is shielded from liability according to section 11-46-9(1)(d). Sections 11-46-9(1)(v) and (w) make it clear that a governmental agency can be held liable for failure to warn of a known danger, as long as that danger is not open and obvious. In this case, the danger at issue was open and obvious to one exercising ordinary care. It is elementary, common knowledge that driving is more dangerous and should be approached more carefully during bad weather, such as the weather at the time of the accident in question. Although the pavement at question in this case was rutted and may have heightened the risk for hydroplaning, the risk of hydroplaning during rainfall is an open and obvious danger, such that the MTC is shielded under the Tort Claims Act.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court