Mississippi Transportation Commission v. Montgomery
80 So. 3d 789
| Miss. | 2012Background
- Montgomery sued the Mississippi Transportation Commission after a pothole in I-55 northbound near Vaughan caused injury; D&B, a private contractor, maintained the relevant highway segment under a contract with the Commission.
- MDOT projects and diaries dated Feb. 12–26, 2003 show prior notices of the Vaughan Bridge pothole and later repairs; some diary entries indicate repairs were made, others say no work was done.
- The Commission sought summary judgment claiming immunity under MTCA, specifically discretionary-function exemptions; the trial court denied summary judgment, finding genuine issues of fact.
- The court’s bench ruling denied summary judgment on grounds of factual disputes about notice and timing, with a formal order entered in June 2010.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court (majority) reversed the denial of summary judgment, remanded to determine if the duty to warn was discretionary under the public-function test, and potential application of MTCA § 11-46-9(l)(v).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warning of a pothole is a discretionary duty under MTCA § 11-46-9(l)(d). | Montgomery argues the duty to warn is not discretionary and the MTCA does not immunize. | Commission argues warning is discretionary under the public-function test. | The court held the trial court must first determine if warning duty is discretionary under the public-function test. |
| Is the Commission immune under § 11-46-9(l)(d) if the pothole warning duty is discretionary? | Montgomery asserts immunity should not apply if duty is non-discretionary. | Commission contends discretionary-duty immunity applies. | If duty to warn is discretionary, immunity applies; case remanded to resolve this threshold. |
| What is the correct framework to assess discretionary immunity—ordinary care approach is overruled? | Montgomery relies on older ordinary-care standards. | Commission relies on continuous use of discretion. | The court overruled reliance on ordinary-care within discretionary duties; applies the two-part public-function test. |
| Do statutory provisions about road maintenance and traffic devices affect whether warning is discretionary? | Montgomery argues duty to warn is non-discretionary despite statutory language. | Commission argues certain aspects are discretionary under 63-3-305 and 65-1-65. | Discretionary.placing/warning of devices is discretionary; overall maintenance duty is not necessarily discretionary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Miss. Dep't of Transp., 744 So.2d 256 (Miss. 1999) (two-part public-function test; discretion in warning devices; policy considerations)
- Collins v. Tallahatchie County, 876 So.2d 284 (Miss. 2004) (discretionary-function immunity; ordinary-care standard overruled for § 11-46-9(d))
- L.W. v. McComb Separate Mun. Sch. Dist., 754 So.2d 1136 (Miss. 1999) (early framework for discretionary vs ministerial duties)
- Brewer v. Burdette, 768 So.2d 920 (Miss. 2000) (held discretionary maintenance decisions; ordinary care not required for discretionary functions (overruled later))
- Cargile v. Miss. Dep't of Transp., 847 So.2d 258 (Miss. 2003) (addressed ordinary-care standard in discretionary context; subsequent overrule)
- Jones v. Mississippi Dep't of Transp., 744 So.2d 256 (Miss. 1999) (discretion and policy considerations in warning of dangerous conditions)
- City of Jackson v. Doe, 68 So.3d 1285 (Miss. 2011) (interlocutory appeal on discretionary duty to warn; governmental immunity)