IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 2015-CA CITY OF WATER VALLEY, MISSISSIPPI BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT

Similar documents
E-Filed Document Oct :46: IA SCT Pages: 19 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI. No M-219

WATER VALLEY, MISSISSIPPI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO CC-002S8 c;oii-~ TERRY H. LOGAN, SR. AND BEVERLY W. LOGAN CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS

ORAL ARGUMENT IS NOT REQUESTED

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO IA SCT

PETITION FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL BY PERMISSION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI LOWE S HOME CENTER, INC. BRIEF OF APPELLANT ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2015-CA-00903

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO CP-00950

IN THE MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS 2015-CA JOSHUA HOWARD Appellant-Defendant v. THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, Appellee-Plaintiff

BRIEF OF APPELLANT ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

Case 1:17-cv LG-RHW Document 42 Filed 03/19/18 Page 1 of 8

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF THE CITY OF CORINTH, MISSISSIPPI

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO.: WC COA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2009-CP APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LAUDERDALE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI BRIEF OF APPELLEE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON March 4, 2002 Session

COPy IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

BRIEF OF THE APPELLEE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 2010-CA-OI624-COA BRIEF OF APPELLEES

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CP COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO: 2009-CA AMERICA'S HOME PLACE, INC. APPELLEE'S BRIEF

BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO CA APPEALED FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY CASE NO.

IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF OF APPELLANT, MARSHALL COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CP-0755-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

BRIEF OF APPELLANTS, JAMES D. HAVARD AND MARGARET HAVARD

CAUSE NO CA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI REBUILD AMERICA, INC. ROBERT McGEE, MATTIE McGee, ET. AL.

APPELLEES/CROSS APPELLANTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 14, 2005 Session. DONALD SHEA SMITH v. TEDDY W. CHERRY, ET AL.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE APPELLEE DOES NOT REQUEST ORAL ARGUMENT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CP COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

APPELLEES MOTION FOR REHEARING

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI PATRICK DANTRE FLUKER BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE APPELLEE DOES NOT REQUEST ORAL ARGUMENT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2008-KA-0387-SCT CERTIORARI FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DONALD GREGORY CHAMBLISS NO CP COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

E-Filed Document Jul :13: EC SCT Pages: 13 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

We refer to DHS and Thornton collectively as appellees.

E-Filed Document Sep :10: CA Pages: 17 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO.

Case 3:17-cv DPJ-FKB Document 5 Filed 05/19/17 Page 1 of 15

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO: 2015-CA COA VICTOR BYAS AND MARY BYAS CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES

v No Wayne Circuit Court ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY OF LC No NF DETROIT LLC and DAVID GLENN, SR.,

v. No CA SCT DOROTHY L. BARNETT, et al. ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HINDS COUNTY NO CIV ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 11, 2016 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiffs-Appellants : C.A. CASE NO

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI. v. No CA APPELLEE / CROSS-APPELLANT LOUISE TAYLOR REPLY BRIEF OF CROSS-APPELLANT BRENDA FORTENBERRY

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA TODD KUHN and ANGELA T. KUHN BRIEF OF APPELLANT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA COA

THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

E-Filed Document Jun :00: CC Pages: 17 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

E-Filed Document Dec :19: CA Pages: 17

FILED MAR BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT ORAL ARGUMENT REOUESTED IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI. CASE NO tlb2082 NANCYLOIT

BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KM-1129-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

MOTION FOR REHEARING

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY COURT OF SIMPSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI BRIEF OF APPELLANT MARILYN NEWSOME

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW

ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TUNICA COUNTY Cause No BRIEF OF APPELLEE ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CLAY COUNTY, LIBERTY, MISSOURI. Case No. Division

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO TS-01383

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 2008-CP STEVEN EASON APPELLANT. On Appeal From the Circuit Court of Greene County, Mississippi

Court of Appeals of Ohio

BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT

For Preview Only - Please Do Not Copy

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MISSISSIPPI ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED

IN THE MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT NO EC ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COAHOMA COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI BRIEF OF APPELLANT

SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSISSIPPI 2011-CA-OI040

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia

BRIEF OF APPELLANTS MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND MISSISSIPPI TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO CA CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI APPELLANT

BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI ERIC LAW AND KRISTINA LAW

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 19, 2013 Session

IN THE. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2011-CA AND MISSISSIPPI STATE OIL AND GAS BOARD, ET AL

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE. Plaintiff v. Defendant TRIAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PRINCE GEORGE S COUNTY

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI JAMES CRAIG PALCULICT REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

v. CAUSE NO CA-01920

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE On-Brief May 29, 2007

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO CA STEVENS AUCTION COMPANY and JOHN D.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CP COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

REPLY BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS

CV. In the Court of Appeals For the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI. ARTHUR GERALD HUDSON and LINDA S. HUDSON APPELLANTS. v. Cause No CA LOWE S HOME CENTERS, INC.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA-00376

Transcription:

E-Filed Document Jun 23 2016 20:34:03 2015-CA-01808 Pages: 14 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI ARLENE CAROTHERS APPELLANT VS. CITY OF WATER VALLEY, MISSISSIPPI 2015-CA-01808 APPELLEES BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT Appealed from the Circuit Court of Yalobusha County, Mississippi for the Second Judicial District This Brief is filed by: Drayton D. Berkley 119 South Main Avenue Ste 500 Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: 901-322-8706 Facsimile: 901-881-0316 e-mail: attorneyberkley@gmail.com Oral Argument Requested Z:\sharedcloud\octopus\data\tmp\Tentakel-1-3985005423882031930.octo\77023e6e-5943-424b-b437-2c96b4cb2a0d.doc

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI ARLENE CAROTHERS APPELLANT VS. CITY OF WATER VALLEY, MISSISSIPPI 2015-CA-1808 APPELLEES The undersigned counsel of record certifies that the following listed persons have an interest in the outcome of this case. These representations are made in order that the Justices of the Supreme Court and/or the judges of the Court of Appeals may evaluate disqualification or recusal. 1. Arlene Carothers, Appellant 2. Drayton D. Berkley, Attorney of Record for Arlene Carothers 3. City of Water Valley, Appellee 4. Healthcare Employers Resources Exchange, Worker s Compensation Carrier 5. Mitchell Driskell of Daniel Coker Horton & Bell Attorneys of Record for City of Water Valley, Mississippi 6. Marjorie T. Matlock, of Holcomb Dunbar Attorneys of Record for Healthcare Employers Resources Exchange 7. Progressive Insurance Company TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Numbers Table of Contents.2-3 2

Table of Authorities.....3-5 Statement of the Issues........5 Statement of the Case.. 6 Statement of the Facts..6-8 Summary of the Argument. 8 Argument.. 8-13 Conclusion....13 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES A. Cases Arceo v. Tolliver, 19 So. 3d 67 (Miss. 2009)..8 Citizens National Bank v. Dixieland Forest Products, LLC, 935 So.2d 1004 (Miss. 2006).... n 4 City of Jackson v. Harris, 44 So.3d 927 (Miss. 2010)..10, 11 Deere & Co. v. First National Bank of Clarksdale, 12 So.3d 516 (Miss. 2009)... n5 Elkins v. McKenzie, 865 So.2d 1065 (Miss. 2003)...n10 Estate of McLemore v. McLemore 63 So.3d 468 (Miss. 2011)....n6 In Re Guardianship of Roshto, 134 So.3d 739 (Miss. 2014)....n3. 3

Lenoir v. Madison County, 641 So.2d 1124 (Miss. 1994) 9,11 Lewis v. Hinds County Circuit Clerk, 158 So.3d 1117 (Miss. 2013).8 Little v. Mississippi Department of Transportation, 129 So.3d 132 (Miss. 2013) 12 Logger LLC v. 1UP Technologies LLC, 50 So.3d 992 (Miss. 2011) 12 Mallard v. Burkhart, 95 So.3d 1264 (Miss. 2012)..n4 Mixon v. Miss. Dept. Transp., 95 So.3d 1264 (Miss. App. 2012)...10 Seward v. Duggan, 21 So.2d 292 (Miss. 1945) 9 Thorp Commercial v Corp v. Mississippi Road Supply Co., 348 So.2d 1016 (Miss. 1977).9 Tellus Operating Group v. Maxwell Energy, 156 So.3d 255 (Miss. 2015)...8 Winder v. State, 640 So.2d 893 (Miss. 1994).9 B. Statutes Miss. Code Ann. 11-46- 9..10, 11 Miss. Code Ann. 21-21- 1..12. Miss. Code Ann. 21-21- 3..12 Miss. Code Ann. 63-3- 205..10, n8, 11 Miss. Code Ann. 63-3- 619 9, n7, 11 C. Rules 4

Rule 12 n9 Rule 15 n9 STATEMENT OF ISSUES 1. The trial court erred in failing to find that Officer Jackson violated Miss. Code Ann. 63-3-619 and other traffic violations. 2. The trial court erred in failing to construe 63-3-205 in pari materia with 11-46-9(1)(c) consistent Tellus Operating Group v. Maxwell Energy, 156 So.3d 255, 261 (Miss. 2015) and City of Jackson v. Harris, 44 So.3d 927, 930-34 (Miss. 2010). 3. The trial court erred in failing to find that 63-3-205 is a specific statute with regards to traffic violations and thus controls 11-46-9(1) any other claimed MTLA immunity arising under 11-46-9(1) consistent with City of Jackson v. Harris, 44 So.3d 927, 930-34 (Miss. 2010) with regards to police vehicles and Mixon v. Mississippi Department of Transportation, 183 So.2d 90 (Miss. 2015), with regards to governmental vehicle and Lenoir v. Madison County, 641 So.2d 1124, 1128-29 (Miss. 1994) generally. 4. The trial court erred in failing to find that 63-3-205 renders the relevant standard of care to be simple negligence and in the alternative whether 63-3-205 and City of Jackson v. Harris, 44 So.3d 927, 930-34 (Miss. 2010) render Officer Marshal Jackson s traffic violations reckless disregard for the safety and well-being of Arlene Carothers as a matter of law. 5. The trial court erred by dismissing the direct liability claims against the City of Water Valley, Mississippi. 5

STATEMENT OF THE CASE This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident between Arlene Carothers and a vehicle operated by a City of Water Valley, Mississippi police officer. Plaintiff commenced this litigation on August 22, 2013. On December 16, 2013, the trial court granted the City of Water Valley, Mississippi s Motion to dismiss direct liability claims against the City of Water Valley, Mississippi. On October 5, 2015, the trial court conducted a bench trial and rendered findings of facts and conclusions of law in favor of Water Valley, Mississippi. On October 22, 2015, the trial court entered the judgment in favor of Water Valley, Mississippi consistent with its October 5, 2015 findings of fact and conclusions of law. On November 23, 2015, Carothers filed her notice of appeal bringing the case here. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS The City of Water Valley is a governmental entity pursuant to the Mississippi Tort Claims Act. Miss. Code Ann. 11-46-1(g) and (I). Record (hereinafter R ), p 261. Carothers and Water Valley Police Officer Marshal Jackson were involved in an automobile accident on September 5, 2012. R261 Officer Marshal Jackson was in the course and scope of his employment with the Water Valley Police Department at the time of the accident. R261 Officer Jackson was not in pursuit of a suspect and was not responding to an emergency dispatch at the time of the accident. R261, Transcript (hereinafter T ), p82. Jackson s blue lights and sirens were not activated at the time of the accident. R261, T82. Carothers was in the course and scope of her employment at the time of the 6

accident. R261. Carothers and Officer Jackson were traveling in the same direction on Main Street in Water Valley and the front of the Water Valley Patrol car collided with the rear of Carothers vehicle. R261 The accident occurred at the intersection of Blackmur and Main in Water Valley, Mississippi. T71. Officer Jackson was behind Arlene Carothers at the Piggly Wiggly. T72. The vehicles were approaching a red light. T72, 75, 78 Jackson was one car length behind Carothers. T75, 78-79 Jackson took his eyes off the road when he reached for his cell phone. T74, 78 Jackson felt the impact with Carothers vehicle 1.5 seconds after looking down to reach for his phone. T76. The accident occurred while Jackson was looking away to get his cell phone. T79. Jackson admitted to Carothers that he hit her and he looked off. T5. The force of the collision bent the hood of Jackson s vehicle and knocked his grill on the ground. R176, 178, T80, 81. Jackson s vehicle was out of service a month after the collision with Carothers. T82. The force of the collision created an dent in the rear of Carother s vehicle. R177, T6-7. Carothers asserted a claim to recover damages from Water Valley, Mississippi as a result of an automobile accident that occurred on September 5, 2012. R261 Carothers also asserted direct liability claims against the City of Water Valley, Mississippi for negligent retention, negligent hiring, negligent supervision, negligent training, and negligent entrustment. R9. The trial court dismissed the direct liability claims with prejudice. R243-244. The parties tried the matter to the trial court on October 5, 2015. R320. 7

Carothers incurred approximately $23,826.00 1 in medical expenses as a proximate result of the accident with Jackson and $4,844.47 in lost wages 2. [Check bill found at R233 and 234] The trial court found that the City of Water Valley, Mississippi was immune pursuant to 11-46-9 and dismissed the Plaintiff s claims with prejudice. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The trial court erred in failing to apply the negligence standard of care to the actions of Officer Jackson on September 5, 2012. ARGUMENT A. The Standard of Review 3 In Arceo v. Tolliver, 19 So. 3d 67, 69-70 (Miss. 2009), the Mississippi Supreme Court held that the construction of statutes was an issue of law which the Court reviews de novo. The recognition of the correct legal standard 4, the application of law to fact 5, and conclusions of law 6 are issues of law that are reviewed de novo. B. Mississippi Statutory Construction Principles In Lewis v. Hinds County Circuit Court, 158 So.3d 1117, 1121-1126 (Miss. 2016), the Mississippi Supreme Court held that lain and unambiguous statutes are enforced as written. In Tellus Operating Group v. Maxwell Energy, 156 So.3d 255, 261 (Miss. 1 R179-196, 205-232. 2 R204. 3 This is the standard of review that applies to each issue before the Court. The Court must first determine whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard even when reviewing for abuse of discretion. In Re Guardianship of Roshto, 134 So.3d 739, 747 (Miss. 2014). 4 Citizens National Bank v. Dixieland Forest Products, LLC, 935 So.2d 1004, 1008 (Miss. 2006). Mallard v. Burkhart, 95 So.3d 1264 (Miss. 2012). 5 Deere & Co., v. First National Bank of Clarksdale, 12 So.3d 516, 520 (Miss. 2009). 6 Estate of McLemore v. McLemore 63 So.3d 955 (Miss. 2011). 8

2015), Mississippi Supreme Court held that statues dealing with the same subject matter should be interpreted in pari materia. In Thorp Commercial Corp. v. Mississippi Road Supply Co. 348 So. 2d 1016, 1018 (Miss. 1977), the Mississippi Supreme Court held that a later statute is presumed to be cumulative to pre-existing legal principles unless there is an express repeal of these pre-existing principles. The Legislature is presumed to know the existing law. Seward v. Duggan, 21 So.2d 292, 294 (Miss. 1945). Moreover, specific statutory provisions control over conflicting general provisions. Lenoir v. Madison County, 641 So.2d 1124, 1128-29 (Miss. 1994). Finally, in Winder v. State, 640 So.2d 893, 905 (Miss. 1994), the Mississippi Supreme Court held that its construction of a statute would be deemed part of the statute if the Legislature failed to amend the statute. C. Application to Issues 1. The trial court erred in failing to find that Officer Jackson violated Miss. Code Ann. 63-3-619 7 and other traffic violations. Consistent with Lewis, the Court should apply the plain terms of 63-3-619 to find that Officer Jackson violated 63-3-619 in addition to other traffic violations. Officer Marshal Jackson was in the course and scope of his employment with the Water Valley Police Department at the time of the accident. R261. Officer Jackson was not in pursuit of a suspect and was not responding to an emergency dispatch at the time of the accident. R261, T.p82. Jackson s blue lights and sirens were not activated at the time of the accident. R261, T82. Officer Jackson was behind Arlene Carothers at the Piggly Wiggly. T72. The vehicles were approaching a red light. T72, 75, 78 Jackson was one car length behind Carothers. T75, 78-79 Jackson took his eyes off the road when he 7 This statue provides in material part that The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent 63-3-619(1) 9

reached for his cell phone. T74, 78 Jackson felt the impact with Carothers vehicle 1.5 seconds after looking down to reach for his phone. T76. The accident occurred while Jackson was looking away to get his cell phone. T79. Jackson admitted to Carothers that he hit her and he looked off. T5. Thus, Officer Jackson followed Carothers more closely than was reasonable or prudent. 2. The trial court erred in failing to construe 63-3-205 8 in pari materia with 11-46-9(1)(c) Consistent with the principles set forth in B., above, In City of Jackson v. Harris, 44 So. 2d 927, 933-35, n18-20 (Miss. 2010), the Mississippi Supreme Court construed the terms 63-3-205 and 11-46-9(1)(c) to determine that Mississippi police operating vehicles not entitled to the immunity afforded by 11-46-9(1)(c) unless the police are responding to an emergency call or in pursuit of an actual or suspected violator. In Mixon v. Mississippi Department of Transportation, 183 So.3d 90 (Miss. 2015), the Mississippi Court of Appeals instructed that, in general, Mississippi law does not authorize governmental employees to violate Mississippi traffic regulations. Applying the foregoing principles, Jackson and the City of Water Valley were not entitled to the protection of 11-46-9(1)(c). Officer Jackson was not in pursuit of a suspect and was not responding to an emergency dispatch at the time of the accident. R261, T.p82. Jackson s blue lights and sirens were not activated at the time of the accident. R261, T82. Moreover, Officer Jackson violated the plain terms of 63-3-619. 8 This statute provides in material part that: The provisions of this chapter apply to drivers of all vehicles owned or operated by. [a]ny city subject to such exceptions as are set forth in this chapter with respect to authorized emergency vehicles. No driver of an authorized emergency vehicle shall assume any special privilege under this chapter except when such vehicle is operated in response to an emergency call or in the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator. 10

3. The trial court erred in failing to find that 63-3-205 is a specific statute with regards to traffic violations and thus controls 11-46-9(1) any other claimed MTLA immunity arising under 11-46-9(1) Applying Lenoir, 63-3-205 is a specific statute with regards to the circumstances when the immunity afforded by 11-46-9(1)(c) may be utilized by a governmental defendant. Therefore the terms of 63-3-205 prevail over the terms of 11-46-9(1)(c). Thus, according to the plain language of 63-3-205, the City of Water Valley shall not assume any special privilege [ 11-46-9(1)(c) immunity], except that Officer Jackson was responding to an emergency call or in the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator. Officer Jackson was not performing any of these activities and thus the City of Water Valley is not immune for a violation of 63-3-619. The reckless disregard standard does not apply. 4. The trial court erred in failing to find that 63-3-205 renders the relevant standard of care to be simple negligence and in the alternative whether 63-3-205 and City of Jackson v. Harris, 44 So.3d 927, 930-34 (Miss. 2010) render Officer Marshal Jackson s traffic violations reckless disregard for the safety and well-being of Arlene Carothers as a matter of law. Applying the foregoing principles, the correct standard to apply is the negligence standard. Thus, Officer Jackson and in turn the City of Water Valley were negligent per se in violating 63-3-619 and other traffic violations. T, 87-88. Moreover, consistent with Jackson, Officer Jackson s conduct also constituted reckless disregard. 5. The trial court erred by dismissing the direct liability claims against the City of Water Valley, Mississippi. 11

In Little v. Mississippi Department of Transportation, 129 So.3d 132, 135 (Miss. 2013), and Loggers LLC v. 1 UP Technologies LLC, 50 So. 3d 992, 994 (Miss. 2011), the Mississippi Supreme Court held that in order for a trial court to grant a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim it must appear to a certainty that the Plaintiff can prove no set of facts to support his, her, or its claim 9. Carothers could have proven multiple sets of facts 10 that if proven would entitle the Plaintiff to recover from the the City of Water Valley, Mississippi. Water Valley only admitted that it was liable if the actions of Officer Marshall Jackson rise to the level of reckless disregard 11. R31. Water Valley never admitted that it was vicariously liable for any negligent actions of Officer Marshall Jackson. R28-32. Thus, Carothers direct negligence claims against the City of Water Valley should not have been dismissed. In Little, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that when actions are mandated by statute, those actions and all actions in furtherance of those mandated actions are ministerial and there is no discreationary immunity. Little, Id. at paragraphs 8-12. Miss. Code Ann. 21-21-1 and 21-21-3 statutorily mandates that all Mississippi municipalities employ, regulate, and support a police force and provide a chief of police or marshal as the chief law enforcement officer. Applying Little, the City of Water Valley, Mississippi had a statutory duty to employ regulate, and support its police force. The City of Water Valley, Mississippi s 9 By its terms Rule 12(b)(6) also provides that if on such a motion matters outside the pleadings are not presented, and if the motion is granted, leave to amend shall be granted in accordance with Rule 15(a). In sum, the Plaintiff would be entitled an amendment as a matter of law if the Defendants 12(b)(6) motion is granted. 10 Mississippi is a notice pleading jurisdiction with regards to MTCA claims. Elkins v. McKenzie, 865 So.2d 1065, 1078 (Miss. 2003). 11 See B4, above. 12

actions or omissions in training, supervision, hiring, retention, and entrusting a vehicle to Marshal Jackson are at a minimum in furtherance of those statutory duties. Thus, the City of Water Valley, Mississippi is not entitled to discreationary immunity for negligent hiring, negligent retention, negligent training, and negligent supervision or reckless disregard for the safety of Arlene Carothers in hiring, training, retaining, supervising and entrusting a vehicle to Marshal Jackson. CONCLUSION Carothers respectfully urges the Court to reverse the trial court and render a judgment in favor of Arlene Carothers. Carothers respectfully urges the Court to remand the matter to the trial court solely to enter the amount of the money judgment in favor of Arlene Carothers. Respectfully submitted, /s/drayton D. Berkley DRAYTON D. BERKLEY, ESQ. (MBN 10280) 119 South Main, Suite 500 Memphis, Tennessee 38103 Telephone: (901) 322-8706 Fax: (901) 881-0316 attorneyberkley@gmail.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies a copy of the foregoing has been served upon counsel for the defendants via e-mail and U.S. Mail, first class postage paid and properly addressed to: Honorable Jimmy McClure Circuit Court Judge 107 W. McLaurie Sardis, MS 38666 Via e-mail: traciecca@bellsouth.net 13

Mrs. Majorie T. Matlock, Esq. HOLCOMB DUNBAR WATTS BEST MASTER & GOLMON 400 Lamar Avenue Ste A Oxford, MS 38655 Mr. Mitchell O. Driskell, Esq. DANIEL COKER HORTON & BELL 265 North Lamar Blvd Ste R Oxford, MS 38655 This the 23rd day of June 2016. /s/drayton D. Berkley DRAYTON D. BERKLEY, ESQ. 14