State for Use and Benefit of Brazeale v. Lewis

Decision Date12 November 1986
Docket NumberNo. 55985,55985
Citation498 So.2d 321
PartiesSTATE of Mississippi for the Use and Benefit of Nelda M. BRAZEALE, and Nelda M. Brazeale, Individually v. Richard A. LEWIS, Individually, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Gary R. Parvin, Starkville, for appellants.

William H. Ward, Ward & Rogers, Starkville, for appellees.

Before ROY NOBLE LEE, P.J., and ANDERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ.

GRIFFIN, Justice, for the Court:

I.

Plaintiffs, Nelda M. Brazeale, individually, and the State of Mississippi for the Use and Benefit of Nelda M. Brazeale, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Oktibbeha County, Mississippi, alleging negligent maintenance and repair of a county road by defendants Richard A. Lewis, individually, and U.S.F. & G. Co., his surety, for injuries and damages Brazeale alleges were proximately caused by an accident which occurred on July 18, 1983, due to the condition of said road. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss which the lower court granted. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the lower court's ruling.

II.

Nelda M. Brazeale was involved in an accident while driving along New Light Road in Oktibbeha County, Mississippi, when she apparently lost control of her car and ran off the road after coming across various obstructions in her path. Plaintiff's amended complaint did, in fact, allege her injuries and damages were the result of numerous holes, indentations, and rough spots along the road which culminated in creating a hazardous condition and which resulted in the complained of accident.

In her complaint, Brazeale charged negligence on the part of Richard A. Lewis, a member of the Board of Supervisors of Oktibbeha County, and with whom authority for supervision of the road in question lay. Brazeale's complaint conclusively delegated to Lewis the primary legal responsibility for preparing and maintaining that portion of the county road system within his district.

Pursuant to M.R.C.P. Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and further that the court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter which forms the basis of plaintiff's claim. The trial court granted the motion and plaintiffs appeal.

III.

A.

The central core of the dispute between the parties to this action involves a topic of particular interest to our judicial system but which, oddly enough, has seen precious little litigation in the State of Mississippi despite the somewhat controversial nature of its existence. We are asked today to determine the rights of an individual a private citizen as it were--to file suit against a county officer, whose act of negligence, she alleges, serves as the proximate cause of her injuries suffered and damages incurred. In short, we are asked to ascertain once again the position and impact the doctrine of sovereign immunity holds within this state and its political subdivisions for torts committed, as well as the liability for the torts of its employees.

As a side issue, we are presented with the question of the liability of Lewis's surety, U.S.F. & G. Co., should we find negligence on the part of Lewis, principal in the action.

B.

The distinction between discretionary and ministerial acts by a government employee is directly correlated to what immunity he will enjoy in the event he has been negligent in his actions or in failing to act. The basis for extending sovereign immunity to government officials lies in the inherent need to promote efficient and timely decision-making without lying in fear of liability for miscalculation or error in those actions. The immunity defense has generally been extended to officials' discretionary acts in most states, Mississippi ranking among them.

In order to allow our lawmakers and government officials to participate freely and without fear of retroactive liability in risk-taking situations requiring the exercise of sound judgment, the discretionary-ministerial distinction has evolved, and remains an integral part of our judicial system in the determination of liability of the state and its employees. In Davis v. Little, 362 So.2d 642, 643 (Miss.1978), we said that:

The immunity of public officials, on the other hand, is a more limited principle, since its purpose is not directly to protect the sovereign, but rather to do so only collaterally by protecting the public official in performance of his governmental function. Given the more limited function, courts have generally extended less than absolute immunity. The most commonly recognized limitation is the distinction between discretionary acts as opposed to ministerial acts. Under this distinction, the official is immune only where that which he does in the performance of his lawful duties requires "personal deliberation, decision and judgment." See Prosser, Law of Torts Sec. 132 (4th ed. 1971).

Our decision in Davis was further reinforced by the landmark case of Pruett v. Rosedale, 421 So.2d 1046 (Miss.1982). While Pruett was a much welcomed and long overdue step towards providing parties with a forum for grievances against the state, whereas this Court directed the legislature to abrogate sovereign immunity, our mandate specifically limited the liability of governmental officials to ministerial functions alone, allowing these state employees to continue their basic policymaking decisions without fear of legal retribution.

Because the threshold issue is whether, as an individual supervisor for the county, Richard Lewis has an independent duty of actually repairing roads and highways in a ministerial capacity, or whether the board of supervisors, as a complete governmental body, is vested with such jurisdiction and control in a discretionary manner of carrying forth such duties of maintenance and repair of the roads, our decision naturally turns upon this functional distinction.

Mississippi Code Annotated Sec. 19-3-41 (1972) provides in part that:

The board of supervisors shall have within the respective counties full jurisdiction over roads, ferries and bridges.

In Leflore County v. Big Sand Drainage District, 383 So.2d 501 (Miss.1980), we held that a county can have no liability except as authorized, expressly or by necessary implication, by some statute. See also Board of Supervisors of Lee County v. Payne, 175 Miss. 12, 166 So. 332 (1936); and City of Grenada v. Grenada County, 115 Miss. 831, 76 So. 682 (1917). To this extent, the Mississippi Legislature enacted Mississippi Code Annotated Sec. 19-13-51 which partially abrogates the sovereign immunity of the board of supervisors in its capacity as "overseer" of the roads, ferries and bridges within its jurisdiction.

The board of supervisors of any county shall have the power, in their discretion, to allow damages sustained to stock and other property injured or destroyed while traveling along the public highways maintained by the county where such loss is caused by defects in a bridge, causeway or culvert in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • McFadden v. State, 58188
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • February 1, 1989
    ... ... Region VII Mental Health v. Isaac, 523 So.2d at 1016; State For the Use and Benefit of Brazeale v. Lewis, 498 So.2d 321, 322 (Miss.1986); White v. City of Tupelo, 462 So.2d 707, 710 ... ...
  • Presley v. Mississippi State Highway Com'n
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • August 31, 1992
    ... ... sub nom. Sykes v. Grantham, 567 So.2d 200 (Miss.1990); and State v. Lewis, 498 So.2d 321 (Miss.1986). This is the first instance, however, in which the constitutionality of ... pick and choose from among similarly situated defendants those who alone will receive the benefit of a 'new' rule of constitutional law." Desist v. United States, U.S. 244, 258-259, 22 L.Ed.2d ... ...
  • Gulf Coast Research Lab. v. Amaraneni
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • October 8, 1998
    ... ...         ¶ 2. This matter is before the Court on various state and federal claims, most notably a claim by the plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C ... State v. Lewis, 498 So.2d 321, 322 (Miss.1986) ; T.M. v. Noblitt, 650 So.2d 1340, 1343 ... ...
  • Mosby v. Moore
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 4, 1998
    ... ... assault and is currently serving a twelve-year sentence in the State Penitentiary ...         I. THE CITY OF OXFORD WAS NOT ... at 1263 (citing State of Mississippi for the Use and Benefit of Brazeale v. Lewis, 498 So.2d 321, 322 (Miss.1986); Pruett v. City of ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT