City of Natchez v. De la Barre
145 So. 3d 729
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Adams County Circuit Court awarded De la Barre $80,000 for injuries from a fall on a Natchez sidewalk and apportioned 50% to De la Barre and 50% to Natchez City; City appeals claiming MTCA immunity and error in applying comparative negligence.
- City argues discretionary-function immunity under MTCA and De la Barre argues failure to inspect/maintain sidewalks.
- Hurricane in Sept. 2008 damaged the sidewalk in front of a building; barricades and warnings were placed by City, but no specific warnings on the bricked portion.
- Sidewalk has two tiers: concrete in front of building and a lower bricked tier; De la Barre knew of damage and frequently walked on the bricked tier; no warnings were present on the bricked portion.
- On March 30, 2009, De la Barre stepped on the bricked portion and fell when bricks collapsed, fracturing his wrist.
- City inspectors stated they warned and inspected the area post-hurricane and attempted to repair; the circuit court found warnings insufficient for the area.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discretionary-function immunity under MTCA applies? | De la Barre argues City failed to inspect/maintain, not just warnings. | City asserts immunity under MTCA discretionary-function exemption. | Yes; City immune under 11-46-9(l)(d). |
Key Cases Cited
- Miss. Transp. Comm’n v. Montgomery, 80 So.3d 789 (Miss. 2012) (discretionary duties depend on judgment; ministerial when statute imposes duty)
- Miss. Dep’t of Mental Health v. Hall, 936 So.2d 917 (Miss. 2006) (duty may be discretionary or ministerial depending on statutory context)
- City of Jackson v. Brister, 888 So.2d 274 (Miss. 2003) (MTCA immunity and standard of review for governmental claims)
- S. Cent. Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. Guffy, 980 So.2d 1252 (Miss. 2006) (MTCA exclusive remedy and de novo review on appeal)
- Covington Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Magee, 29 So.3d 1 (Miss. 2010) (ministerial vs discretionary duties; statutory duties affect immunity)
- Little v. Miss. Dep’t of Transp., 129 So.3d 132 (Miss. 2013) (duty and acts fulfilling duty; ministerial vs discretionary)