Mitchell, et al. v. City of Greenville
| Docket Number: | 2001-CA-01876-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: |
Opinion Date: 05-29-2003 Opinion Author: Carlson, J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Tort Claims Act - Failure to warn - Section 11-46-9(1)(w) Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Smith, P.J., Waller, Cobb, Easley and Graves, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Concurs in Result Only: McRae, P.J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-03-2001 Appealed from: Washington County Circuit Court Judge: Richard Smith Disposition: Granted summary judgment in favor of the Appellee. |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Brenda L. Mitchell and Bradford Dreher Jordan |
WALTER BEAUREGARD SWAIN, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | City of Greenville, Mississippi | L. BRADLEY DILLARD |
|
|
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 - Failure to warn - Section 11-46-9(1)(w) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Brenda Mitchell and Bradford Jordan filed separate lawsuits against the City of Greenville and Hovas Construction, Inc., for injuries and damages sustained in a one-car accident when their motor vehicle struck a pile of dirt and debris from the construction of a boat ramp. By agreed order, the cases were consolidated. Greenville filed a motion for summary judgment which the court granted. Mitchell and Jordan appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Mitchell and Jordan argue that Greenville, through its contractor, Hovas, created the dangerous condition and failed to warn drivers of the potential danger. The record indicates that precautions were taken to warn motorists of the dangerous road condition. While Mitchell and Jordan concede that warning signs were posted at the site at the end of the work day, they argue that Greenville made no subsequent inspection of the signs for a period of seven or eight hours before the accident. Section 11-46-9(1)(w) does not require a governmental entity to actively patrol areas containing warning signs to see if a third party has removed the signs. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Greenville knew or should have known that the sign was tipped over. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
