City of Hattiesburg v. Buckalew
| Decision Date | 06 March 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 41726,41726 |
| Citation | 240 Miss. 323,127 So.2d 428 |
| Parties | CITY OF HATTIESBURG, etc., and W. C. Bailey, etc. v. Ted Lewis BUCKALEW, a Minor, by his Father and Next Friend, F. L. Buckalew. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Sullivan & Sullivan, Hattiesburg, for appellants.
Francis T. Zachary, Hattiesburg, for appellee.
Appellee sued Bailey, a policeman, and the City of Hattiesburg for personal injuries sustained when the City's patrol car operated by Bailey collided with a car in which appellee was riding.
At the conclusion of all the testimony, City of Hattiesburg requested the court to instruct the jury to find for the City. Motion was overruled and the case went to the jury and a verdict was returned in favor of appellee against Bailey and the City. City appealed to this Court.
The decisive question in this case is whether the municipality is immune from suit by appellee. We hold that it is.
The rule in this State is that a municipality is immune from liability for the torts of its officers, agents, and employees while engaged in matters pertaining to the police powers of the City. This rule is conceded by appellee, but he contends that this case is governed by the rule announced in City of Meridian v. Beeman, 175 Miss. 527, 166 So. 757, but we think it would be an extension of the rule announced in the Beeman case to apply it here. In the Beeman case, the plaintiff was negligently injured while the policeman was patrolling his beat, but at the same time the policeman was required by several ordinances to constantly note while on his beat, and to report as occasion required, the condition of bridges, culverts, sewers, drainpipes, streets, and sidewalks, and also as to the condition of all street lights and as to any accidents that may have happened in his beat in regard to gas or water works and the like. It was held that the court should not be called upon to unscramble the mixed relations in which the city had placed itself in regard to the duties of its officers in view of the ordinances. In that case every policeman was at all times and at all places constantly performing duties in connection with the proprietary affairs of the city as well as those pertaining to police powers.
In the present case, the policeman was not subject to any ordinance requiring him to perform any duties pertaining to the city's proprietary affairs. The proof showed that policemen, as they patrolled the streets, were required to report...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burton v. Waller
...Twiner v. Jenkins, 257 So.2d 488 (Miss.1972); Simpson v. Poindexter, 241 Miss. 854, 133 So.2d 286 (1961); City of Hattiesburg v. Buckalew, 240 Miss. 323, 127 So.2d 428 (1961); Bates v. City of McComb, 181 Miss. 336, 179 So. 737 D. SOURCES OF LIABILITY. Throughout the remainder of this opini......
-
Smith v. City of West Point
...which operated as a complete defense to an action of this sort. Jackson v. Smith, 309 So.2d 520 (Miss.1975); City of Hattiesburg v. Buckalew, 240 Miss. 323, 127 So.2d 428 (1961). Our law had not declared tortious the conduct here alleged, see The Western Maid, 257 U.S. 419, 433, 42 S.Ct. 15......
-
White v. City of Tupelo
...policeman driving patrol car while on duty to pick up second policeman and transport him to city hall. City of Hattiesburg v. Buckalew, 240 Miss. 323, 127 So.2d 428 (1961); (3) Making repairs on city hall building. Jones v. City of Amory, 184 Miss. 161, 185 So. 237 (1939); (4) "Maintaining ......