Mississippi Transportation Commission v. Dominique Adams, D, 197 So. 3d 406

Background

Christopher Adams died after his motorcycle entered a construction lane on I‑10, struck an uneven longitudinal edge between lanes in a construction zone, was thrown into traffic, and was struck by other vehicles. His spouse sued MDOT and the Mississippi Transportation Commission (MTC) and the project contractor, alleging failures in traffic‑control devices and compliance with the Red Book and statutes.
Plaintiff alleged violations of the Mississippi Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (the “Red Book”), the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and statutory duties to inspect, maintain, and mark lanes; expert affidavits asserted specific breaches (missing temporary edge/lane striping, conflicting old markings, improper placement of drums, and failure to designate/monitor a responsible inspector).
Defendants moved for summary judgment invoking MTCA discretionary‑function immunity (Miss. Code § 11‑46‑9(1)(d) and (p)) and relied on statutory discretion over placement/maintenance of traffic‑control devices (Miss. Code § 63‑3‑303 and related provisions).
The trial court denied summary judgment, finding plaintiff presented evidence that defendants violated ministerial duties imposed by the Red Book and statutes. Defendants appealed interlocutorily.
The Supreme Court addressed whether narrow duties embodied in adopted regulations and statutes can render acts ministerial (thus outside MTCA discretionary immunity) despite an overarching statutory grant of discretion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether placement/maintenance of traffic‑control devices is barred by MTCA discretionary‑function immunity (§ 11‑46‑9(1)(d))	Narrow duties in the Red Book/statutes make certain acts (edge striping, removing conflicting marks, designating/monitoring inspector) ministerial, so immunity does not apply	Overall placement/maintenance of traffic devices is discretionary under § 63‑3‑303, so immunity applies even if narrower regulations exist	Court: Denied immunity — specific ministerial duties in the Red Book/statutes can abrogate discretionary immunity when plaintiff produces evidence of breach
Whether Miss. Code § 65‑1‑67 (edge‑line trimming/statute) permits ignoring Red Book temporary striping requirements during reconstruction	MTC incorporated the Red Book into contract/Traffic Control Plan; Red Book requires temporary replacement of edge/lane lines daily, so § 65‑1‑67’s reconstruction exception does not allow noncompliance with adopted regulations	§ 65‑1‑67 gives discretion to open roads under reconstruction with temporary centerline marking; thus edge‑line statute does not apply	Court: § 65‑1‑67 does not excuse noncompliance with Red Book requirements that MTC adopted and incorporated; defendants not immune on that ground
Whether Miss. Code § 65‑1‑65 (duty to patrol/maintain highways) is inapplicable because the road segment was under construction	§ 65‑1‑65 imposes a ministerial duty of maintenance/inspection that applies even to state highways under construction; defendants breached that duty	The section applies only to roadways "taken over" for maintenance; construction segment was not yet "built/taken over," so duty not triggered	Court: § 65‑1‑65 applied to the state highway under construction and imposed ministerial duties; defendants’ argument rejected
Whether claims are barred as arising from deficient plans/designs (§ 11‑46‑9(1)(p))	Plaintiff’s claims are that adopted plans/regulations were not followed (noncompliance), not that the design/plan itself was deficient	Claims actually attack placement/design choices in MDOT plans, so immunity under plan/design exception applies	Court: Plaintiff alleges failure to follow incorporated Red Book/Traffic Control Plan (noncompliance), not defective plan/design; § 11‑46‑9(1)(p) immunity not applicable

Key Cases Cited

Brantley v. City of Horn Lake, 152 So.3d 1106 (Miss. 2014) (narrow statutory/regulatory duties can render parts of an otherwise discretionary function ministerial)
Boroujerdi v. City of Starkville, 158 So.3d 1106 (Miss. 2015) (recognizing that narrower duties within a broad discretionary function may be made ministerial by statutes/regulations)
Alabama Great Southern R.R. v. Jobes, 156 So.3d 871 (Miss. 2015) (discretionary immunity applied where plaintiff presented no evidence of breach of narrower ministerial duties)
Little v. Mississippi Dep’t of Transp., 129 So.3d 132 (Miss. 2013) (§ 65‑1‑65 imposes ministerial duty to maintain/repair state highways unless another statute makes a particular act discretionary)
Mississippi Transp. Comm’n v. Montgomery, 80 So.3d 789 (Miss. 2012) (distinguishing planning/initial placement decisions from maintenance duties)
United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (U.S. 1991) (federal test for discretionary‑function immunity and purpose of protecting policy‑based decisions)
City of Magee v. Jones, 161 So.3d 1047 (Miss. 2015) (standard of review and discussion of discretionary‑function immunity application)