Mieger v. Pearl River County


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-CA-01379-COA
Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-01379-SCT ; 2006-CA-01379-COA ; 2006-CT-01379-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 01-08-2008
Opinion Author: LEE, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed in Part, Reversed and Remanded in Part

Additional Case Information: Topic: Personal injury - Tort Claims Act - Political subdivision - Sheriff’s department - Amendment of complaint - Notice of claim - M.R.C.P. 15(c) - M.R.C.P. 4(d)(6)
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ.
Dissenting Author : CARLTON, J., with separate written opinion.
Dissent Joined By : IRVING AND CHANDLER, JJ.
Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Carlton, J. with separate written opinion.
Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: Irving and Chandler, JJ.
Procedural History: Dismissal
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 07-17-2006
Appealed from: PEARL RIVER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: R. I. Prichard, III
Disposition: Motion to dismiss granted in favor of Pearl River County.
Case Number: 2005-0363

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: ANGELIA K. MIEGER, DONALD MIEGER, AND ANGELIA MIEGER AS NEXT FRIEND OF HER CHILDREN, ARIELLE MIEGER AND ANDREW MIEGER




MARGARET WILLIAMS HOLMES, MICHAEL CLAYTON BAREFIELD



 

Appellee: PEARL RIVER COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI JAMES LAWRENCE WILSON, IV  

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 - Political subdivision - Sheriff’s department - Amendment of complaint - Notice of claim - M.R.C.P. 15(c) - M.R.C.P. 4(d)(6)

Summary of the Facts: Angelia Mieger, a paramedic, responded to a call from the Pearl River County Sheriff’s Department. When she arrived at the scene, she attempted to help the suspect but noticed a strong smell and began to have trouble breathing. She also alleges that she was beaten by the suspect while she was giving him medical attention. Mieger, along with her husband, Donald, and as next of friend of her two minor children, filed a complaint against the Pearl River County Sheriff’s Department and Jane/John Does 1-20. The complaint alleged that Mieger suffered severe and permanent respiratory injuries as well as post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. The sheriff’s department filed a motion to dismiss for failure to name a political subdivision as a party. Mieger filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint to correct the oversight of not naming Pearl River County as a defendant. The court granted the motion to dismiss, and Mieger appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Political subdivision The trial court dismissed Mieger’s complaint for failure to name a proper defendant under the Tort Claims Act. The Supreme Court has held that a sheriff’s department is not a political subdivision within the meaning of the Act and, thus, does not enjoy a separate legal existence under which it can be sued. Therefore, the proper governmental entity to name as defendant in this suit was Pearl River County, not the Pearl River County Sheriff’s Department, as the trial judge correctly found. Mieger argues that a sheriff’s department is an instrumentality of the state, as contemplated in section 11-46-1(i), and thus enjoys a separate legal existence. It is the Court’s duty to follow the precedent set by the Supreme Court. Issue 2: Amendment of complaint Mieger argues that she should have been allowed to amend her complaint under the relation back doctrine in M.R.C.P. 15(c), because Pearl River County was put on notice of the claim when the president and board of supervisors were served with the notice of claim letter. M.R.C.P. 4(d)(6) states that service shall be made upon a county by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the president or clerk of the board of supervisors. Mieger served the clerk of the board of supervisors with a notice of claim letter on November 30, 2004 – well before the expiration of the statute of limitations on February 7, 2006. The notice of claim letter put the proper county official on notice that, except for the mistake of naming the wrong party, the action would have been brought against the county. Therefore, the decision of the circuit court denying Mieger’s motion for leave to amend her complaint was in error.


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