City of Jackson v. Internal Engine Parts Group
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-02772-SCT Linked Case(s): 2003-CA-02772-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-31-2005 Opinion Author: Randolph, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Property damage - Tort Claims Act - Immunity - Section 11-46-9(1)(v) - Discovery violation - Weight of evidence - Motion to alter or amend judgment - Findings of fact - M.R.C.P. 52(a) Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : Graves, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-24-2003 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: Entered a judgment awarding $369,480.32 in favor of Appellees. Case Number: 251-02-91-CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | The City of Jackson |
BARBARA A. BLUNTSON |
||
| Appellee: | The Internal Engine Parts Group, Inc. a/k/a Engine Parts Warehouse Jackson and Clearbrook Holdings, LLC. a/k/a ENGINE PARTS WAREHOUSE JACKSON AND CLEARBROOK HOLDINGS, LLC | JOSEPH E. LOTTERHOS, CHARLES FRANK FAIR BARBOUR |
|
|
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 - Immunity - Section 11-46-9(1)(v) - Discovery violation - Weight of evidence - Motion to alter or amend judgment - Findings of fact - M.R.C.P. 52(a) |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Internal Engine Parts Group, Inc. a/k/a Engine Parts Warehouse Jackson, and Clearbrook Holdings, LLC filed a complaint against the City of Jackson, seeking to recover damages for alleged acts of negligence and breach of contract against the City of Jackson for property damage sustained during a period of heavy rainfall and flooding. The court awarded $369,480.32 in favor of Engine Parts. The City appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Immunity The City argues that it is exempt from liability pursuant to section 11-46-9(1)(v). The following facts and circumstances were established by the evidence: there was a drainage ditch filled with debris which the City inspected and maintained; the hazardous condition, in combination with the flood, was caused or contributed to by the negligence and wrongful conduct of the City employees in failing to regularly inspect and maintain the drainage ditch; the City through its employees, either knew or should have known that this condition existed prior to the flood, as testimony revealed that its employees were notified five or six times in the year prior to the flood, and were notified again a month before the flood that the debris obstruction existed; and because the City was notified of the debris in the drainage ditch well before the flood, it had adequate opportunity to remove or clean up the hazard created by the debris. There was substantial credible evidence to support the court’s finding that the City had either actual or constructive notice of the debris obstructions and that the City allowed the dangerous condition to exist. Therefore, the City is not exempt from liability. Issue 2: Discovery violation The City argues that the court erred in excluding the testimony of witnesses disclosed by the City six days prior to trial. Once an opponent requests discoverable material, an attorney has a duty to comply with the request regardless of the advantage a surprise may bring. The judge here was correct in excluding the testimony of the newly added witnesses. The court ordered that all discovery be complete on April 30, 2003. The City had almost a year to supplement its responses and failed to do so. Furthermore, the City waited an additional six months after discovery was closed to reveal additional witnesses, and then only within a week of the trial. Issue 3: Weight of evidence The City argues that the judgment of the trial court was against the weight of the evidence. Since the City cites no authority for this proposition, the issue is procedurally barred. Issue 4: Motion to alter or amend judgment The City argues that its motion for amendment placed the trial court on notice that there was a clear error of law in the court’s verdict and judgment. The City’s motion did not assert that the judgment referenced law that was no longer applicable and did not raise any issues under sections 11-46-9(1)(v) or 11-46-3. The City did not present this issue to the court in its motion for amendment or for new trial. Therefore, the City is barred from raising it now on appeal. And although the judgment contained references to section 11-46-3(3), a statute that was no longer applicable, the correct result was obtained. Issue 5: Findings of fact The City argues that the court erred in failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by M.R.C.P. 52(a), because this was a complex case. The City failed to request specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. In addition, sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law are contained within in the court’s verdict and judgment. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
