Jones v. Mississippi School for Blind, No. 1998-CA-01314-SCT.
Decision Date | 06 April 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 1998-CA-01314-SCT. |
Parties | Paul JONES, a Minor, by his next friend and Mother Mamie B. JONES v. MISSISSIPPI SCHOOL FOR the BLIND. |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Guy N. Rogers, Pearl, Attorney for Appellants.
Office of the Attorney General by Jim Fraiser, Attorney for Appellee.
BEFORE PRATHER, C.J., MILLS AND COBB, JJ.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
¶ 1. On January 16, 1997, Paul Jones, ("Jones") a student at the Mississippi School for the Blind ("the School"), was injured in a wheelchair accident on school premises. On January 14, 1998, Jones submitted a notice of claim to Dr. Richard Boyd, Interim State Superintendent of Education, setting forth the relevant details of the accident and seeking damages for the alleged negligence of school employees. On April 1, 1998, Jones filed a negligence suit for damages against the School in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County. On July 24, 1998, the circuit judge dismissed Jones' lawsuit, based on his failure to comply strictly with the notice requirements of the Mississippi Tort Claims Act, Miss.Code Ann. §§ 11-46-1 et seq. (Supp.1999). Jones timely appealed to this Court:
¶ 2. The present appeal is an uncontested one, given that the School has filed a motion confessing Jones' appeal. The School states in its motion that:
Appellees wish to confess Appellants' appeal on the basis of recently decided cases which, although not cited by Appellant, defeat all of Appellee's arguments. Appellees admit that under applicable law, Appellant substantially complied with the notice statute.
The School correctly acknowledges that, subsequent to the trial court's ruling in the present case, this Court has issued holdings which indicate that Jones did in fact substantially comply with the notice provisions of the Tort Claims Act.
¶ 3. In interpreting the provisions of the Mississippi Tort Claims Act, this Court has recently adopted a substantial compliance standard, holding that "[w]hen the simple requirements of the Act have been substantially complied with, jurisdiction will attach for the purposes of the Act." Reaves ex rel. Rouse v. Randall, 729 So.2d 1237, 1240 (Miss.1998). See also: Carr v. Town of Shubuta, 733 So.2d 261 (Miss. 1999),
overruling in part City of Jackson v. Lumpkin, 697 So.2d 1179, 1182 (Miss. 1997) and Carpenter v. Dawson, 701 So.2d 806, 808 (Miss.1997).
¶ 4. The first issue in the present appeal involves the Tort Claims Act's requirement that a plaintiff wait ninety days between providing notice of his claim and filing suit against a governmental entity. Specifically, Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-11(1) (Supp.1999) provides that:
(1) After all procedures within a governmental entity have been exhausted, any person having a claim for injury arising under the provisions of this chapter against a governmental entity or its employee shall proceed as he might in any action at law or in equity; provided, however, that ninety (90) days prior to maintaining an action thereon, such person shall file a notice of claim with the chief executive officer of the governmental entity.
In City of Pascagoula v. Tomlinson, 741 So.2d 224 (Miss.1999), this Court recently held that:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Price v. Clark
...Wright v. Quesnel, 876 So.2d 362, 366 (Miss.2004); Davis v. Hoss, 869 So.2d 397, 401-02 (Miss.2004); Jones ex rel. Jones v. Miss. Sch. for the Blind, 758 So.2d 428, 429 (Miss.2000), overruled by Easterling, 928 So.2d 815; Jackson v. City of Wiggins, 760 So.2d 694, 695-96 (Miss.2000), overru......
-
Stuart v. University of Miss.
...court lacked jurisdiction because Henderson failed to comply with the notice provisions of the MTCA"); Jones ex rel. Jones v. Miss. Sch. for the Blind, 758 So.2d 428, 429 (Miss.2000) (citations omitted) ("In interpreting the provisions of the Mississippi Tort Claims Act, this Court has [hel......
-
Arceo v. Tolliver
...] [Leflore County v.] Givens, [754 So.2d 1223 (Miss.2000) ] City of Wiggins, [Jones ex rel. Jones v.] Mississippi School for Blind, [758 So.2d 428 (Miss.2000) ] and [Williams v.] Clay County, [861 So.2d 953 (Miss.2003) ] but only as to those cases' analysis of the ninety-day notice requirem......
-
Stuart v. University of Miss. Med. Center, No. 2007-CA-00864-COA.
...County, 861 So.2d 953, 977 (¶ 100) (Miss.2003); Jackson v. City of Wiggins, 760 So.2d 694, 696(¶ 3) (Miss. 2000); Jones ex rel. Jones v. Miss. Sch. for the Blind, 758 So.2d 428, 429(¶ 4) (Miss. 2000); Jackson v. City of Booneville, 738 So.2d 1241, 1246(¶ 21) (Miss.1999); City of Pascagoula ......