Martin v. Franklin County
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-01581-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-09-2010 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Tort claims act - Adequate warning - Section 11-46-9(1)(v) - Proximate cause - Sanctions Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY; Dismissal |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-21-2008 Appealed from: Franklin County Circuit Court Judge: Forrest Johnson Disposition: DISMISSED DEFENDANT FRANKLIN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI WITH PREJUDICE Case Number: 05CV109 |
|
| Note: | Due to a military leave of absence, Hon. Virginia C. Carlton did not participate in this hand down. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | GLENN "TREY" MARTIN III |
JAMES KEVIN RUNDLETT |
|
|
| Appellee: | FRANKLIN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI | EDWARD J. CURRIE, JR., LANE B. REED, JEREMY TRISTAN HUTTO | ||
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 - Adequate warning - Section 11-46-9(1)(v) - Proximate cause - Sanctions |
| Summary of the Facts: | Following an all-terrain vehicle accident on a bridge located in Franklin County, Glen “Trey” Martin sustained head and other injuries. Martin filed a complaint alleging that Franklin County was negligent in failing to properly maintain Garden City Road and the bridge, in failing to warn of the conditions, and by negligently constructing the dirt embankments that were placed before the entrance to the bridge. The County filed a motion to dismiss Martin’s complaint. The court found in favor of the County and dismissed Martin’s case with prejudice. Martin appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Adequate warning Martin argues that the County had a duty to warn the public of the bridge’s dangerous condition and that it failed to do so. Pursuant to section 11-46-9(1)(v), a governmental entity shall not be liable for the failure to warn of a dangerous condition which is obvious to one exercising due care. According to testimony from the EMT, she saw a “Bridge Out” sign on the Adams County side of the bridge, which was on the same side from which Martin and the group approached the bridge prior to the accident. Evidence from the toxicology reports presented to the trial court showed that both Martin and another person were legally intoxicated at the time of the accident. In addition, the offense report presented during trial provides that Martin and the group were ramping their ATVs over the dirt embankments that were erected by the County to prevent crossing of the bridge. Several Franklin County officials testified that prior to the accident, several warning signs were placed by them on Garden City Road at the approach to the bridge. Thus, the County did provide adequate warning that the bridge was out. Issue 2: Proximate cause Martin argues that the sole proximate cause of his injuries was the County’s failure to adequately warn of a dangerous condition about which the County knew. Martin argues that even if he is partially at fault, he was only contributorily negligent. The trial court was presented with evidence that Martin knew or should have known that the bridge was out prior to the accident. Liability will not be placed on a governmental entity when the facts present a situation of an open and obvious condition which is required for immunity pursuant to section 11-46-9(1)(v). Issue 3: Sanctions Martin argues that the trial court erred by deciding not to cite the Franklin County Attorney for highly unethical conduct during the trial on this matter. During the first day of trial, Martin announced to the trial court that the next witness would be the Assistant State Traffic Engineer for the Mississippi Department of Transportation. When the witness’s name was called, he did not respond. The trial judge conducted a hearing to determine why the witness was not present, and the County Attorney stated that it was his understanding that an assistant attorney general informed the witness that because he was not under subpoena, he could do whatever he wished. There is no evidence that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to levy sanctions upon the County Attorney. This is especially true when the witness was allowed to testify and the documents the witness authenticated were admitted into evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
