Donna Webb v. Desoto County

CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 6, 2001
Docket2002-CA-00005-SCT
StatusPublished

This text of Donna Webb v. Desoto County (Donna Webb v. Desoto County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Donna Webb v. Desoto County, (Mich. 2001).

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2002-CA-00005-SCT

DONNA WEBB AND ROBERT CHAMBERS, INDIVIDUALLY AS PARENTS AND ON BEHALF OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF MICHAEL S. CHAMBERS

v.

DESOTO COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, DESOTO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, JAMES A. RILEY, DESOTO COUNTY SHERIFF, AND JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE, DESOTO COUNTY DEPUTY JAILERS, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/6/2001 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. GEORGE B. READY COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: DESOTO COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: GWENDOLYN BAPTIST HEWLETT A. C. WHARTON, JR. ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: SIDNEY RAY HILL, III JOHN S. HILL NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 04/17/2003 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED:

BEFORE PITTMAN, C.J., WALLER AND GRAVES, JJ.

GRAVES, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶1. This appeal arises from an order entered by the Circuit Court of DeSoto County, Mississippi, on

December 6, 2001. The instant complaint was filed on January 26, 2001, by Donna Webb and Robert

Chambers, individually as parents and on behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Michael S. Chambers, who committed suicide on January 29, 2000, while incarcerated at the DeSoto County

Detention Center. DeSoto County, Mississippi, the DeSoto County Board of Supervisors, James A. Riley,

DeSoto County Sheriff, and John and Jane Does (collectively "Desoto County") are sued only in their

official capacities. The defendants filed an answer and defenses denying all allegations in the complaint on

May 23, 2001. The defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss on October 2, 2001. Following

a hearing on November 28, 2001, the circuit court entered an order dismissing the complaint. The order

was filed with the court on December 11, 2001. Webb and Chambers raise the following issues on appeal:

I. WHETHER THE COURT ERRED IN GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO MISSISSIPPI RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(B)(6).

II. WHETHER MISS. CODE ANN. § 11-46-9(1)(M) HAS A CONTROLLING EFFECT IN THIS CASE.

III. WHETHER A WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIM BY BENEFICIARIES AND HEIRS IS AN INDEPENDENT CAUSE OF ACTION.

IV. WHETHER MISS. CODE ANN. § 11-46-5 IS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE.

FACTS

¶2. Michael S. Chambers was brought to the DeSoto County Detention Center on January 26, 2000,

after being arrested for disturbing the peace and domestic violence. On January 29, 2000, DeSoto County

Detention Center employees found Chambers dead, hanging in his cell with a bed sheet tied around his

neck. It is undisputed that the cause of Chambers’s death was suicide. A subsequent investigation by the

DeSoto County Detention Center and Mississippi Highway Safety Patrol found that Chambers had not

evidenced any suicidal tendencies and gave no indication of his potentially dangerous emotional state.

DISCUSSION

2 ¶3. Webb and Chambers contend that the circuit court erred in granting DeSoto County’s motion to

dismiss pursuant to Miss. R. Civ. 12(b)(6) holding that Webb and Chambers failed to present any set of

facts that would justify relief. Webb and Chambers argue that Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-9 (1)(m) is not

applicable to the case at bar because the law on the rights of beneficiaries to bring a claim for wrongful

death of their decedent is not entrenched in common law, statutory law or case law. Webb and Chambers

allege a wrongful death claim by beneficiaries and heirs is an independent cause of action and the provisions

of Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-5 are applicable to the facts of this case. Additionally, Webb and Chambers

assert that § 11-46-5 supercedes the immunity set forth in Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-9(1)(m). ¶4.

Since the four issues are interrelated they will be discussed simultaneously. Webb and Chambers

brought suit against DeSoto County asserting that their negligence was the proximate cause of Chambers’s

death. Webb and Chambers’s claim, however, is barred by the Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-9(1)(m),

which states in pertinent part:

(1) A governmental entity and its employees acting within the course and scope of their employment or duties shall not be liable for any claim:

****

(m) Of any claimant who at the time the claim arises is an inmate of any detention center, jail, workhouse, penal farm, penitentiary or other such institution, regardless of whether such claimant is or is not an inmate of any detention center, jail, workhouse, penal farm, penitentiary or other such institution when the claim is filed.

The circuit court found that this section provides DeSoto County immunity because at the time the claim

arose, i.e. Chambers’s death, he was incarcerated at the DeSoto County Detention Center. The record

is devoid of any allegation that the DeSoto County Detention Center’s employees were acting outside

the scope of their employment.

3 ¶5. In Liggans v. Coahoma County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 823 So.2d 1152, 1153 (Miss. 2002), this

Court addressed § 11-46-9(1)(m) in the context of a suit brought by an inmate who was injured while

incarcerated at the county jail when she fell from a top bunk bed and injured her jaw, seeking $500,000

in damages plus medical expenses. This Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the action relying on

the clear legislative intent of the Mississippi Tort Claims Act.

¶6. A M.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) motion should not be granted unless it appears beyond a reasonable doubt

that the plaintiff will be unable to prove any set of facts in support of the claim. In reviewing the grant of

a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the appellate court conducts a de novo review. Lowe v.

Lowndes County Building Inspection Dep’t, 760 So.2d 711, 712 (Miss. 2000). We find that Miss.

Code Ann. § 11-46-9(1)(m) clearly bars the instant suit.

¶7. Webb and Chambers attempt to circumvent Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-9(1)(m) by alleging that

an action for wrongful death is an independent cause of action; therefore, placing them in a position different

from the decedent. However, this Court has found that a wrongful death suit is a derivative action by the

beneficiaries, and those beneficiaries, therefore, stand in the position of their decedent. See Wickline v.

U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 530 So.2d 708, 715 (Miss. 1998).

¶8. Webb and Chambers stand in the position of Michael Chambers. Therefore, Webb and Chambers

are only entitled to the remedy afforded to Michael Chambers if he had survived. Since § 11-46-9(1)(m)

provides him with no remedy, so it also prevents a suit by his heirs. Webb and Chambers are unable to

bring a wrongful death suit on behalf of a prisoner who dies while incarcerated. For the aforementioned

reasons, we find no reversible error.

¶9. Webb and Chambers argue that the waiver of immunity contained in § 11-46-5 supercedes the

specific types of immunity set forth in § 11-46-9. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-5

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Liggans v. Coahoma County Sheriff's Dept.
823 So. 2d 1152 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2002)
McClain v. State
625 So. 2d 774 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1993)
Wickline v. US Fidelity & Guar. Co.
530 So. 2d 708 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1988)
Lowe v. LOWNDES COUNTY BLDG. INSP. DEPT.
760 So. 2d 711 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Donna Webb v. Desoto County, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donna-webb-v-desoto-county-miss-2001.