Dancy v. E. Miss. State Hosp., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-01280-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-07-2006 Opinion Author: RANDOLPH, J. Holding: ON DIRECT APPEAL: AFFIRMED. ON CROSS-APPEAL: DISMISSED AS MOOT |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Tort Claims Act - Discretionary function immunity Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER AND COBB, P.JJ., DIAZ, EASLEY, CARLSON AND DICKINSON, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: GRAVES, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-01-2005 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court Judge: Larry Eugene Roberts Disposition: Granted Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment Case Number: 03-CV-112-R |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | GLEN DANCY |
ROY GREGG ROGERS,
CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL FALGOUT |
||
| Appellee: | EAST MISSISSIPPI STATE HOSPITAL AND THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH | EUGENE M. HARLOW |
|
|
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 - Discretionary function immunity |
| Summary of the Facts: | Glen Dancy was committed to East Mississippi State Hospital by order of the chancery court. While taking part in the Clearing House Unit Day Program at the Hospital, Dancy was injured after escaping supervision on a field trip to Wal-Mart and attempting to commit suicide by running into traffic. Dancy filed a complaint against the Hospital. The Hospital filed a motion to dismiss and/or in the alternative motion for summary judgment in the circuit court. The court found the Hospital and its employees immune from liability under the discretionary function exemption of the Tort Claims Act. Dancy appeals, and the Hospital cross-appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Dancy argues that the court erred in dismissing all of Dancy’s claims as barred by discretionary function immunity. A governmental entity and its employees acting within the course and scope of their employment or duties shall not be liable for any claim based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty. In determining whether governmental conduct is discretionary, the court looks at whether the activity involved an element of choice or judgment and if so, whether the choice or judgment in supervision involves social, economic or political policy alternatives. Admission of Dancy to the CHU Day Program, which included permission to attend Day Program field trips, was within the discretion of the treatment team. Patient observation on field trips was flexible and did not require staff members to constantly have patients in sight. The use of physical restraint requires staff members to make assessment of the situation and then to exercise common sense in making a judgment call based upon their experience. Section 41-4-7(g) gives the Hospital discretion to establish and promulgate reasonable minimum standards and policies. Also, the Hospital has established and promulgated standards which authorize discretion on the part of its agents. Patient observation and the physical restraint of patients provide two examples of such discretion in practice. The choice or judgment involved in patient observation and the physical restraint of patients involves social policy, such that the governmental functions at issue were discretionary. The Hospital’s cross-appeal arguing that the court erred in denying its motion to dismiss for improper and/or insufficient service of process is dismissed as moot. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
