Parsons v. Miss. State Port Auth.
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-02095-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-02095-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 09-16-2008 | |
* 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: 11-25-2008 Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Property damage - Applicability of statutes - Tort Claims Act - Mississippi Emergency Management Law - Section 11-46-9(1)(f) - Section 33-15-21 Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, and Carlton, JJ. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-02-2007 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Stephen Simpson Disposition: GRANTED DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS Case Number: A2401-07-42 |
|
| Note: | The video provide by the Court picks up in the middle of the argument. We apologize for any inconvienience this may cause. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | ARTHUR PARSONS, JR. AND ANGELA
PARSONS, HUSBAND AND WIFE |
DANNY E. CUPIT,
TRACY MICHELLE WALKER,
MARY JO WOODS |
|
|
| Appellee: | MISSISSIPPI STATE PORT AUTHORITY AT GULFPORT, AND MISSISSIPPI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY | BEN HARRY STONE, JONATHAN PAUL DYAL, M. BRANT PETTIS | ||
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: | Property damage - Applicability of statutes - Tort Claims Act - Mississippi Emergency Management Law - Section 11-46-9(1)(f) - Section 33-15-21 |
| Summary of the Facts: | After losing their possessions during Hurricane Katrina, Arthur and Angela Parsons filed suit against the Mississippi Port Authority and the Mississippi Development Authority, alleging that the MPA and the MDA were negligent in the preparation and performance of their duties before and during the storm at the Port of Gulfport by failing to properly secure and/or remove any potential flying debris from the Port of Gulfport pursuant to the prepared hurricane procedural manual and that a shipping cargo container, owned by a tenant of the Port of Gulfport, was carried onto the Parsonses’ property and caused the total destruction of their house, personal belongings, automobiles, and personal property. The MPA and the MDA filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court concluded that the MPA and MDA were immune from claims involving pre-emergency preparedness and post-emergency response, recovery, and mitigation pursuant to sections 33-15-5 and 33-15-21, and dismissed the action. The Parsonses appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Parsonses argue that the Tort Claims Act has superseded the Mississippi Emergency Management Law and therefore, the trial court should have applied the MTCA rather than the MEML. The trial court agreed that MPA and MDA were government agencies, but held that the MPA and MDA were immune under the emergency management exception of the MEML. A familiar rule in statutory interpretation is that the last expression of the Legislature must prevail over the former. Section 33-15-21 of the MEML, which grants immunity to state agencies during emergencies, was originally enacted in 1952 with the most recent effective date of May 9, 1980. The Legislature passed the MTCA over ten years after the last passage of the MEML. The Parsonses argue that if the Legislature had desired, it could have put language in the MTCA excluding emergency activities. Section 11-46-9(1)(f) of the MTCA clearly allows other immunities to remain in effect after its passage. Section 33-15-21 of the MEML provides immunity to the state and its agencies for liability occurring during emergency situations. A detailed review of these statutes leads to the conclusion that the MTCA and the MEML can be read in conjunction with each other and that the MTCA has not superseded the MEML. The MTCA provides that it is the exclusive remedy against the state and its agencies and, thus, is applicable in the instant case. However, under section 11-46-9(1)(f), claims that are limited or barred by other provisions of law are exempted from liability under the MTCA. The MEML is one such law that allows the state and its agencies to be immune from liability stemming from its activities during emergency situations. Following the rules of statutory construction, the two statutes can be read together to provide immunity for the state and its agencies for its activities during times of emergency management while simultaneously being exempt from liability under the MTCA. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
