Farmer v. Bolivar County
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-01913-COA | |
| Oral Argument: | 10-12-2004 | |
* 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 Date: 03-08-2005 Opinion Author: IRVING, J., Holding: REVERSED AND REMANDED: |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Tort Claims Act - Statute of limitations - Section 11-46-11 (3) Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., BRIDGES AND LEE, P.JJ., MYERS, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ., Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-14-2003 Appealed from: Bolivar County Circuit Court Judge: Larry O. Lewis Disposition: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED IN FAVOR OF APPELLEE. |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | GREGORY FARMER |
ELLIS TURNAGE
TAMEKIA ROCHELLE GOLIDAY |
||
| Appellee: | BOLIVAR COUNTY, 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: | Personal injury - Tort Claims Act - Statute of limitations - Section 11-46-11 (3) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Gregory Farmer filed a complaint against the City of Rosedale and Bolivar County, alleging that they were negligent in maintaining their property and public pathways in a reasonably safe condition, and that as a result of their failure to do so, he, while walking on a public pathway across the southwest corner lawn of the courthouse in Rosedale, stepped into a deep, uncovered hole, injuring his back and left knee. Bolivar County filed a motion to dismiss which the court granted. Farmer appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Farmer argues that the court erred in finding that he failed to file his lawsuit within the time required by law. Under section 11-46-11 (3), the one year statute of limitations begins to run on the date the cause of action occurs or accrues. The statute is tolled for either 95 or 120 days, depending on the agency, from the day notice is received by the agency. Assuming arguendo that there is no response or denial from the agency, the statute will begin running again after the 95 or 120 day period ends. The claimant would then have the balance of the original one year statute not used at the time notice was received to file the suit, as the tolling period merely suspended the running of the statute. In addition to the one-year statue of limitations provided by section 11-46-11, the claimant has an additional 90 days granted by the statute in which to file suit. If the agency denies the claim, the tolling period ends immediately. The claimant is then left with the remaining days in the original one-year limitations period not used at the time notice was received plus the additional 90 days in which to file suit. Farmer’s complaint was timely. Farmer gave notice on August 7, 2000, and the statute of limitations was tolled for 120 days or until December 5, 2000. After the tolling period ended, the one-year statute recommenced running. At that time, there would have been 365 days remaining, making the one year expire on December 5, 2001. Adding the additional 90 days, in which a claimant has to file suit to this date would extend the deadline for filing to March 5, 2002. Farmer filed on January 16, 2002. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
