Frazier v. MDOT


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-SA-01739-COA
Linked Case(s): 2006-SA-01739-SCT ; 2006-SA-01739 2006-SA-01739

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 12-04-2007
Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J.,
Holding: AFFIRMED

Additional Case Information: Topic: Personal injury - Tort Claims Act - Duty to warn - Dangerous condition
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Chandler, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Carlton, JJ.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 09-01-2006
Appealed from: SCOTT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Vernon Cotten
Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED IN FAVOR OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Case Number: 2004-CV-377-SC-C

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: KAREN FRAZIER




YANCY B. BURNS



 

Appellee: MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOHN T. KITCHENS  

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 - Duty to warn - Dangerous condition

Summary of the Facts: Karen Frazier brought an action against the Mississippi Department of Transportation for damages arising out of a car accident. The court granted summary judgment in favor of MDOT. Frazier appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Earlier in the day that the injury occurred, MDOT began refurbishing a section of Highway 13 by pouring tar into the cracks in the highway. It also distributed slag and gravel over the road, so the tar could properly set and not damage any cars. Frazier argues that the loose gravel constituted a dangerous condition and that because MDOT created the dangerous condition, it is not immune under the Tort Claims Act. A governmental entity charged with maintaining and repairing roads, owes a duty to warn motorist or repair roads only if it is given notice of a dangerous condition. In the absence of notice, a governmental entity’s decision to maintain or repair roads, or to place traffic control devices or signs, is purely discretionary, and the entity will be immune from suit even upon proof of an abuse of discretion. The MDOT supervisor in charge of the project said in his deposition that the road looked good when he and his work crew left for the day. He also said it did not look dangerous. The first time MDOT received notice that Highway 13 might be in a dangerous condition was when another MDOT supervisor received a phone call from the Scott County Sheriff’s Office. Thus, MDOT did not receive notice of the dangerous condition, if one existed, until well after Frazier’s accident. Furthermore, Frazier did not put forward any evidence that MDOT had notice of any defective condition. Thus, there was no genuine issue of material fact and MDOT was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Even if MDOT had notice that Highway 13 was in a dangerous condition before the accident, the uncontradicted evidence in this case shows that MDOT placed warning signs.


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