Fairley v. George County
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-00320-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-22-2004 Opinion Author: Smith, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Tort Claims Act - Substantial compliance with notice of claim provisions - Section 11-46-11 Judge(s) Concurring: Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson and Dickinson, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Easley, J., Concurs in Result Only With Separate Written Opinion, Joined by Graves, J. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-10-2003 Appealed from: George County Circuit Court Judge: Kathy King Jackson Disposition: The trial court granted the Board's motion for summary judgment. Case Number: 97-0017(2) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Evelyn Fairley |
BEN F. GALLOWAY |
||
| Appellee: | George County, Mississippi, A Political Subdivision | DAVID MICHAEL ISHEE WILLIAM M. RAINEY |
|
|
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 - Substantial compliance with notice of claim provisions - Section 11-46-11 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Evelyn Fairley allegedly sustained injuries when she lost control of her vehicle due to gravel on county-maintained River Road in George County. She filed suit against George County Board of Supervisors. The Board moved for summary judgment which the court granted. Fairley appealed, and the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case. On remand, the Board filed another motion for summary judgment which the court granted. Fairley appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Fairley argues that the court erred in finding that her notice of claim did not substantially comply with the requirements of section 11-46-11. Though substantial compliance with the notice provisions of the Tort Claims Act is sufficient, substantial compliance is not the same as, nor a substitute for, non-compliance. Fairley’s letter to the County fails to meet even the substantial compliance standard. She made no attempt to comply with at least six statutorily required factors. The letter was not sent to the County, but to an attorney. In addition, the letter was not sent registered mail or certified mail, nor was it delivered in person; did not contain a short and plain statement of the facts with regard to circumstance of injury; did not give the extent of injuries; did not give the name of all persons; did not list the damages sought; and did not give the residence of the claimant. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
