Chisolm, et al. v. Miss. Dep't of Transp.
| Docket Number: | 2003-CT-02526-SCT Linked Case(s): 2003-CA-02526-COA ; 2003-CT-02526-SCT ; 2003-CA-02526-COA |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-09-2006 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the judgment of the Circuit Court of Sharkey County is reinstated and affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Tort Claims Act - Independent contractor status - The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices - Negligence Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Diaz, Carlson and Randolph, JJ. Dissenting Author : Easley, J. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY Writ of Certiorari: Yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-08-2003 Appealed from: Sharkey County Circuit Court Judge: Isadore Patrick Disposition: The trial courts granted summary judgment to the Mississippi Department of Transportation, finding that it could not be held liable for the negligence of its independent contractor, Great River Stone Company, and also that it qualified for immunity under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act. Case Number: 99-0095-V |
|
| Consolidated: Consolidated with 2003-CT-02526-SCT Oliver David Chisolm, Jr., Oliver David Chisolm, III, Carolyn Elizabeth Chisolm and Kayla Louisa Chisolm v. Mississippi Department of Transportation; Sharkey Circuit Court; LC Case #: 99-0095-V; Ruling Date: 06/13/2002; Ruling Judge: Frank Vollor | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Oliver David Chisolm, Jr., Oliver David Chisolm, III, Carolyn Elizabeth Chisolm and Kayla Louisa Chisolm |
DAVID M. SESSUMS |
||
| Appellee: | Mississippi Department of Transportation | G. KENNER ELLIS |
|
|
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 - Independent contractor status - The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices - Negligence |
| Summary of the Facts: | The heirs of Priscilla Chisolm filed suit against the Mississippi Department of Transportation and Great River Stone Company. Linda Pugh also filed suit against MDOT and Great River. Both suits alleged that MDOT and Great River were negligent in placing traffic control barrels, failing to provide warning lights, warning signs, barricades, and guardrails, and numerous other allegations of negligence. MDOT moved for summary judgment in the Chisolm case, which the court granted. MDOT also moved for summary judgment against Pugh, and the court granted MDOT’s motion. Chisolm and Pugh appealed, and the two cases were consolidated. The Court of Appeals held that Great River was MDOT’s independent contractor and that MDOT was immune from liability under two of the MTCA subsections relied upon by the trial courts. However, because it also found MDOT did not qualify for immunity under a third provision, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for trial. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Independent contractor status An independent contractor is a person who contracts with another to do something for him but who is not controlled by the other nor subject to the other’s right to control with respect to his physical conduct in the performance of the undertaking. Under the general rule, the independent contractor’s principal has no vicarious liability for the torts committed by the independent contractor or its employees in the performance of the contract. Several of the sections of the contract between MDOT and Great River evidence the parties’ intent for Great River to serve as an independent contractor. While the construction work had to comply with MDOT’s specifications and the Traffic Control Plan, Great River maintained control over the performance of all aspects of the work. Additionally, MDOT inspectors had no power to alter Great River’s performance, so long as the requirements of the contract were observed. Based on the clear language of the contract, the trial courts and the Court of Appeals correctly found that Great River was an independent contractor. When a third party is adversely affected, however, the Court can look beyond the contract to determine whether public policy requires recharacterization of the relationship to allow the injured party to recover. Application of the public policy factor is unwarranted in this case since the plaintiffs had an adequate remedy available to them and have been compensated. Based on The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the plaintiffs argue that responsibility for the design, placement, operation, and maintenance of traffic control and warning devices rested ultimately with MDOT, and not with Great River and therefore, MDOT can be held liable for their injuries despite Great River’s status as an independent contractor. Although Mississippi has not adopted the MUTCD, its provisions and guidelines are advisory in nature to a finder of fact. They have no significance, however, with respect to questions of law. The MUTCD becomes a tool for assessing a breach of duty only after a legal duty has already been established. Therefore, MDOT’s alleged violations of the MUTCD do not constitute negligence per se, and the plaintiffs cannot use the MUTCD as a method of circumventing Great River’s independent contractor status to hold MDOT liable. The general rule that a principal is not liable for the torts of its independent contractor has two exceptions. However, because the plaintiffs did not present either of these arguments, the Court will not consider them. Issue 2: Negligence Unless the plaintiffs can produce some evidence that MDOT or its employees committed some negligent act, MDOT cannot be held liable. None of the plaintiffs’ allegations arise from any duty or breach of duty by MDOT. MDOT was responsible for developing the Traffic Control Plan, and Great River was responsible for implementing it. There is no genuine issue of material fact whether the Traffic Control Plan met the accepted engineering or design standards at that time. All of the evidence points to negligence by Great River, MDOT’s independent contractor. The Court cannot look to apply the immunity provisions of the Tort Claims Act unless some wrong by the government is first established, and the requisite negligence cannot be established here. The Court of Appeals erred in automatically analyzing this case under the Tort Claims Act without first determining whether MDOT’s conduct could lead to liability in the first place. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
