Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mississippi Transportation Commission v. Allday

May 14, 1998

MISSISSIPPI TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, EX REL., MIKE MOORE, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
v.
RHONDA ALLDAY



DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/22/94 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. BILLY JOE LANDRUM COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: JONES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Prather, Chief Justice

NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - OTHER

DISPOSITION REVERSED AND RENDERED

MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

MANDATE ISSUED:

EN BANC.

¶1. This appeal arises from a March 22, 1994 order of the Jones County Circuit Court, finding that the Mississippi Department of Transportation caused or contributed to injuries sustained by Rhonda Allday in a September 13, 1992 accident. At issue is the state of the law of sovereign immunity on the date of the accident. This Court's decision in Presley v. Mississippi State Highway Commission, 608 So. 2d 1288 (Miss. 1992), finding the immunity provisions of Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-6 unconstitutional, was handed down on August 31, 1992 and the petition for rehearing in that case was denied on December 3, 1992. In response to Presley, a revised version of § 11-46-6 was passed by the Legislature on September 16, 1992, three days after Allday's accident. The Transportation Commission, aggrieved by the judgment against it, therefore asks this Court to consider:

I. Whether the decision in Presley v. Mississippi State Highway Commission should be applied prospectively from the time the initial opinion was issued or from the time the petition for rehearing was denied; and

II. Whether the retroactive declaration of sovereign immunity in § 11-46-3 bars sovereign immunity claims against the State and its subdivisions which predate July 1, 1993?

Allday, on cross-appeal, challenges the adequacy of the jury's $160,000 judgment, which made no provision for pain and suffering or disfigurement, and the circuit court's denial of her motion for additur. Accordingly, she raises the following issue:

I. Whether the lower court committed error by refusing to grant an additur;

A. Whether the jury was bound under the law to award damages for pain and suffering and disfigurement; and

B. Whether the jury was bound to award damages for total loss of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.