Little v. Mississippi Department of Transportation
129 So. 3d 132 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA), a government entity's statutory duty to maintain and repair state highways is a ministerial function. Therefore, the entity is not entitled to discretionary-function immunity for acts, or failures to act, in furtherance of that duty, unless another statute specifically makes a particular act discretionary.
Facts:
- On the evening of November 26, 2004, a large pine tree had fallen across Highway 26 in George County, Mississippi.
- Floyd Little, traveling east on the highway, was the first to collide with the fallen tree.
- Roger Pierce, traveling west from the opposite direction, then ran into the other side of the tree.
- Kelly Sykes subsequently collided with the rear of Pierce's vehicle.
- Little and Pierce sustained personal injuries, and all three motorists incurred property damage to their vehicles.
Procedural Posture:
- Floyd Little, Roger Pierce, and Kelly Sykes sued the Mississippi Department of Transportation in the George County Circuit Court (trial court) for negligence.
- The Department filed a motion to dismiss, claiming immunity under the discretionary function provision of the Mississippi Tort Claims Act.
- The trial court initially denied the Department's motion and a subsequent renewed motion.
- After a new, relevant case was decided, the Department filed a second renewed motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted.
- The motorists appealed the dismissal to the Mississippi Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the Department was entitled to immunity.
- The motorists then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Mississippi Supreme Court, which the court granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the discretionary function exception of the Mississippi Tort Claims Act shield the Mississippi Department of Transportation from liability for its alleged failure to maintain a highway right-of-way by not removing a dangerous tree that later fell and caused an accident?
Opinions:
Majority - Coleman, J.
No. The discretionary function exception of the Mississippi Tort Claims Act does not shield the Department of Transportation from liability because its duty to maintain highway rights-of-way is a ministerial, not discretionary, function. The court's analysis focuses on the nature of the governmental 'function' itself, rather than the specific 'acts' performed to carry it out. Mississippi Code § 65-1-65 imposes a mandatory, ministerial duty on the Department to maintain state highways. When a statute mandates a governmental function, all acts fulfilling that duty are also considered ministerial and are not protected by discretionary immunity. The court explicitly overrules a line of prior cases which held that while a duty may be mandated, the manner of performing that duty could be discretionary. Unless another statute explicitly carves out a specific activity as discretionary, the entire function and its component acts are ministerial.
Dissenting - Waller, C.J.
Yes. The discretionary function exception should shield the Department of Transportation from liability because highway maintenance is a discretionary function. The dissent argues the majority improperly overturns a long-standing line of precedent. Applying the established two-prong test, highway maintenance involves both an element of choice or judgment and considerations of social and economic policy. The Department must exercise discretion in allocating limited funds, prioritizing repairs across thousands of miles of roads, and determining which maintenance issues are most critical. These decisions are policy-based judgments that the discretionary function exception is designed to protect. The statute itself grants discretion in how to organize patrols and maintenance, confirming the discretionary nature of the function.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of the discretionary function exception under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act, thereby expanding potential government liability. By shifting the legal analysis from the specific 'act' to the overarching 'function,' the court makes it more difficult for government entities to claim immunity for negligence in carrying out statutorily mandated duties. The ruling explicitly overrules a substantial body of precedent, creating a clearer, but stricter, standard that will likely increase litigation against state agencies for failures in maintenance and inspection. This precedent requires the legislature to enact specific statutory carve-outs if it wishes to grant immunity for particular governmental activities.
Unlock the full brief for Little v. Mississippi Department of Transportation