Newton v. Lincoln County
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-01675-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-27-2012 Opinion Author: Griffis, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Tort Claims Act - Notice - Section 11-46-11(1) & (2) - Waiver Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving, P.J., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-08-2010 Appealed from: Lincoln County Circuit Court Judge: David H. Strong Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED IN FAVOR OF APPELLEE Case Number: 2009-33LS |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Stephen Newton |
GERALD LEE KUCIA |
|
|
| Appellee: | Lincoln County, Mississippi | ROBERT O. ALLEN, JOHN CHADWICK WILLIAMS | ||
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 - Notice - Section 11-46-11(1) & (2) - Waiver |
| Summary of the Facts: | Stephen Newton filed a lawsuit against Lincoln County and Deputy John Branton based on personal injuries sustained in a car wreck. The circuit court granted a motion for summary judgment filed by Lincoln County and Deputy Branton. Newton appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Notice The Mississippi Tort Claims Act requires that a claimant, who wants to bring a claim against a governmental entity or employee, give the governmental entity notice of the claim. The ninety-day notice requirement under section 11-46-11(1) is a hard-edged, mandatory rule which an appellate court strictly enforces. Here, there is no evidence that Newton complied with section 11-46-11(1). There is no evidence that Newton sent a notice of claim to the Lincoln County Chancery Clerk. Newton does not argue that he met the notice requirement of section 11-46-11(1). Rather, Newton claims that he substantially complied with the notice requirement when his attorney sent a letter to an insurance-company representative. However, the letter failed to include the information required in the seven categories found in section 11-46-11(2). The letter failed to state: (1) any facts regarding the extent of the injury, (2) the place the injury occurred, (3) the names of all persons known to be involved, (4) the amount of money damages sought, (5) Newton’s residence at the time of the injury, and (6) Newton’s residence at the time of the filing. Thus, the circuit court did not err in finding that Newton failed to substantially comply with the notice requirements provide in the MTCA. Issue 2: Waiver Newton argues that the procedural protections of the MTCA were waived because the purpose of the notice provisions was satisfied. The record does not indicate that Newton complied or substantially complied with the notice provision of section 11-46-11(1). Newton’s complaint was filed on August 17, 2009. Lincoln County and Branton answered on September 30, 2009, and raised as a defense “each and every provision of the [MTCA] Miss. Code Ann. §11-46-1, et seq., including all conditions precedent, statutes of limitations and immunities contained therein.” On April 7, 2010, Lincoln County and Branton filed their motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on the ground that Newton failed to comply with the notice provision. It appears that Lincoln County and Branton adequately pled their defense. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
