Punzo v. Jackson County


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2002-CA-01196-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 12-04-2003
Opinion Author: Smith, P.J.
Holding: Reversed and Remanded

Additional Case Information: Topic: Property damage - Tort Claims Act - Statute of limitations - Latent injury - Section 11-46-11 - Mandatory injunction
Judge(s) Concurring: McRae, P.J., Waller, Easley, Carlson and Graves, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J.
Dissenting Author : Cobb, J.
Concurs in Result Only: Pittman, C.J.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PROPERTY DAMAGE

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 06-29-2002
Appealed from: Jackson County Circuit Court
Judge: Kathy King Jackson
Disposition: The trial court denied Punzo’s request for a mandatory permanent injunction and granted partial summary judgment.
Case Number: CI-99-0397(3)(2)

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Henry Punzo




RUSSELL S. GILL BRADLEY WADE RATH



 

Appellee: Jackson County, Mississippi GARY S. EVANS  

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 - Tort Claims Act - Statute of limitations - Latent injury - Section 11-46-11 - Mandatory injunction

Summary of the Facts: After Henry Punzo’s home flooded several times, he filed a complaint against Jackson County seeking money damages and a mandatory injunction. The County filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative, for summary judgment. The court found the claim for money damages was barred by the one-year statute of limitations and denied Punzo’s request for a mandatory permanent injunction. Punzo appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Money damages Punzo argues the discovery rule applies to toll the statute of limitations. He argues that if the one-year statute of limitations in section 11-46-11(3) applies, then his claim was promptly filed since he filed his complaint within one year of his discovery of the County’s negligent rebuilding of the bridge. Where an injury is latent, a determination of when the statute of limitation begins to run focuses not on the time of the negligent act or omission, but on when the plaintiff discovers the injury. The County argues that if the injury was latent, Punzo did not use the required reasonable diligence to determine the cause of the flood because three years passed between the first flood and the time Punzo learned from a neighbor of the bridge’s alterations. However, one flood does not create enough notice of an actionable claim’s existence or of someone’s fault. Within six months of the second flood, Punzo learned of the alleged cause. Six months is a reasonable time period to discover the alleged cause of the harm. Within one year of his discovery of the potential cause of the floods, he instigated proceedings against the County in compliance with section 11-46-11. Therefore, the court erred in dismissing the money damages portion of Punzo’s complaint as time barred. Issue 2: Mandatory injunction In this case, the trial court stated that the proof required for a mandatory injunction is beyond a reasonable doubt. However, this is the wrong standard. To obtain a permanent injunction, a party must show an imminent threat of irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Mandatory injunctions should be granted only where that which they demand is reasonably practicable.


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