I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 7 - S A- 0 0 5 9 7 - S CT CO NSOLI DATED W I TH NO. 2 0 0 5 - CA- 0 2 0 7 6 - S CT
DENNI SM . McLEMO RE AND W I FE, TAMM Y C. McLEMO RE
v. M I S S I S S I P P I T RA NS P OR T AT ION C OM

M I S S ION

D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 03/ 13/ 2007 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . R O B E R T P . C H A M B E R L IN COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: DES OTO COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A T T O R N E Y F O R A P P E L L A N T S : J O S E P H WA L K E R S I MS ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEE: RI CH AR D G
. NO BLE J . A N T H O N Y WI L L I A MS NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - STATE BO AR DS A ND AG ENC I ES D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 06/ 12/ 2008 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

EN BA NC. GR AVES, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. D e n n is a n d T a m m y M c L e m o re file d s u it in th e C ir c u it C o u rt o f D e S o to C o u n ty agai ns tthe M i s s i s s i ppi Tr ans por t at i on Com m i s s i on ( M T C ) a nd Tal botB r other s C ontr act i ng Co. , I nc . , a l l e gi ng a t a ki ng w i tho utj us tc ompe ns a t i on i n vi ol a t i on of t he M i s s i s s i pp i a nd U . S. C ons t i tut i ons due t o f l oodi ng and s i l t at i on on r eal pr operty f r om negl i gence i n t he

### 2

c o n s tru c t i o n o f

a h i g h wa y . Th e tr i a l c o u r tg r a n t e d s u mma ry j u d g me n tf o rM TC. S u b se q u e n tly , the M c L e m o re s file d th is a p p e a l.

F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. T he M T C f

i l ed an emi nent dom ai n act i on i n 1999 t o obt ai n a 174- acr e por t i on of t he M c L e m o re s’ D e S o to C o u n ty p ro p e rty to co n stru c t an inte rsta te h ig h w a y b e tw e e n In ter sta te 55 atH ernando and H i ghw ay 61 atR ob i nsonvi l l e. A j ury aw ar ded the M cLem or es $1, 370, 000 i n 2001. I n 2003, thi s C ourtreversed the ver di ctof the j ury and r emanded t he
c a s e f o r a n e w tr ia l. See Miss. T ran sp. Com m ’n v. McL em ore , 8 6 3 S o . 2 d 3 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ). Pr i ort o t he r etr i al , M T C fi l ed a m ot i on i n l i m i ne t o prohi bi tthe M cLem or es f r om i ntr oduci ng pr oof r egar di ng f

l oodi ng, dr ai nage a nd e r os i on da m ages . T he tr i al c our tgr ant ed the mot i on, orderi ng as f

oll ow s: [T ] h e P lai n ti ff’ s M o ti o n in L im ine is h ere b y su stai n ed an d the C o u rto rde rs thatcouns el forthe D ef endant s , the D ef

endant s and w i tnes s es f orthe D e fe n d a n ts s h a ll ref

ra in fro m m e n tio n in g o r s tatin g d u rin g th e trial o f th is c a u se a ll m a tters p e rta in in g to c la im s o f p o st-a c q u isitio n d a m a g e s to D ef endant s ’ pr operty c aus ed by the cons truct i on of the hi ghw ay w hi ch i s the su b jec t o f th is la w su it. A ll su c h p a rties sh a ll n o t re fe r in th e ir sta tem e n ts a n d /o r te stim o n y to damages i ncurr ed by D ef endant s as a r es ul tof the act i on of the contr act oror any otherpa r ty f

r om the cons truct i on of

the hi ghw ay, i ncl udi ng butnotl i m i t ed t o er os i on, si l t at i on, cr op dam age and r emedi at i on ef f or t s . T he C our tfi nds that s uch r ef er ence orm ent i on of

pos t - acqui s i t i on damages i s nota pr operel ement of damages and ther ef

or e ca nnotbe consi der ed i n t hi s em i nentdom ai n act i on. ¶3
. O n re trial, th e ju ry re tu rn e d a v e rd ict a w a rd in g th e M cL em o res $ 1 , 4 2 5 , 3 2 0 in compensa t i on and damages and gr ant i ng M T C i m m edi at e t i t l e, pos s es s i on, and entry upon th e p ro p e rty , ap p ro p ria tin g it t o th e p u b lic u se u p o n p a y m e n t.Miss. Code Ann. Section 11- 46-11(3) (Rev. 2002)
. 1 Th e p en ding n eg lig en ce a cti on ag ain st T alb ot i s n ot b ef

orethi s C ourt. 2 

### 3 ¶4. I n the i ns t ant cas e, the M cLem or es as s ert t hat M T C ’s con st ruct i on of the hi ghw ay i t s el f and thr ough i t s cont r act or , T al bot , caus ed num er ous fl oodi ng, dra i nage, and si l t at i on pr obl ems f

orthe r emai nderof

thei rl and. Speci f

i cal l y, the M cLem or es a s s ertthat t he
ex ca v ati o n o f fi ll d irt f o r th e h igh w ay from p it s loc ated o n T u n ica B luffs ca u sed sev ere
er os i on and s i l t at i on. I n a n att empt t o cur e s om e of the pr obl ems, M T C bui l ta br i dge over the dr ai nage di t ch and t ook outa pr evi ous l y- i ns t al l ed cul vertt o al l ow i ncr eas ed f l ow of
w at er . T al botw as f

i ned f ori t s pr act i ces by the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof E nvi r onm ent al Q u a lity
. ¶5 . T h e M c L e m o re s filed s u it a lleg in g a ta k ing w ith o u t j u st co m p en sati o n o f the ir
rem ai ning p rope r ty by the M T C due t o f l oodi ng and s i l t at i on and al s o al l egi ng thatT al bot
w as negl i gent . M T C a ns w er ed and f i l ed a mot i on f

ors um m ary j udgm enton the bas i s t hat the ac t i on s houl d have been br oughtunderthe M i s s i s s i ppi T or tC l ai m s A ct . T he M cLem or es fi led a resp o n se re it era ti n g their claim o f a tak ing
. O n A u g u st 18 , 2 0 0 5 , the tri al co u rt enter ed an order grant i ng M T C ’s m oti on forsum m ary j ud gm ent, fi nd i ng i n p art : “In the case at ha n d , w h il e the P lai n ti ffs ha v e c o u ch ed their claim s as a co n sti tuti o n al vio lat ion , the C o u rt fi n d s tha t th e c laim s are clea rl y tort -ba sed an d , there fore , su b ject t o the M issi ssipp i T o rt C l ai m s A ct . ” The t r i al courtf ur therf ound the ac t i on w as ba rr ed by the appl i cabl e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . O n Sept ember27, 2005, t he tr i al courtent er ed an O r derof D i s m i s s al and Fi nal 1 Ju d g m e n t o n ly a s to M T C
. T h e re a fte r, th e M c L e m o re s file d th is a p p e a l. 2 A N A L Y S IS

### 4

W h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g s u mm a r y j u d g me n t i n f a v o r o f t h e M TC , di s m i s s i ng t he c l ai m s of t he M c Lem or e s unde r A r t i c l e 3, Se c t i on 17 of t he M i s s i s s i ppi C onst i t ut i on and und er t he F i f t h a n d F ou rt eent h A m endm ent s t o t he U ni t ed St at es C on st i tuti on for j u st com p en sati on an d d am ag es. ¶6. T h is C o u rtem ploys a de no vo s t and ard of r ev iew in co n side ri n g a tri al co u rt ’s d e c is io n o n a m o tio n fo r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. See Hu ff-C o o k, In c . v. D a le , 913 So. 2d 988 (M is s . 2 0 0 5 ). See al

s o H ar t f or d Cas . I

ns. Co. v. H

al liburton Co. , 82 6 S o. 2d 12 06 (M i ss. 2001)
. “A m ot i on forsumm ary j udgm entshoul d be gra nt ed onl y w hen ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al f

actand t he movi ng party i s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” I d.
a t 1 2 0 9
. See R ul e 56( c) , M i s s i s s i ppi R ules o f C i vi l Pr ocedur e ( M . R . C
. P. )
. “To pre vent
s um m ary j udgm ent , t he non- m ovi ng par ty m us test abl i s h a genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fa ctby
m eans al l ow abl e underthe rul e. ” H art ford , 826 So. 2d at1209. T hi s C our thas f ur thers ai d: O urappel l at e s t andar d f orr evi ew i ng the gr antorde ni al of s um m ary j udgm ent i s the s ame st andar d as thato f t he t r i al courtunderR ul e 56( c) of the M issi ssipp i R u les o f C ivil P roc ed u re. T h is C o u rte m p loy s a d e n o v o stan d ard of r evi ew of

a l ow er cour t ’ s gr antordeni al of s um m ary j udgm entand exam i nes al l the ev i de n t i ary m at t ers before i t– ad m i ssi on s i n p l eadings, ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es , depos i t i ons , af f i davi t s , et c. T he evi dence m us tbe vi ew ed i n t he l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o t he part y agai ns tw hom the mot i on has been made. I f

, i n thi s vi ew , ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al f

actand, the m ovi ng p ar ty i s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw , s um m ary j udgm ent s houl d f or thw i th be ent er ed i n hi s favor
. O therw i s e, the mot i on s houl d be den i ed. Is sues of f

actsuff i ci ent t o requir e den i al of a m oti on forsum m ary j udgm entobvi ous l y a r e pr es entw her e one party s w ear s t o one ve r s i on of the m att eri n i s s ue and a nothers ays the oppos i t e. In addi t i on, the bur den of demonstr at i ng thatno genui ne i s s ue of f actexi s t s i s on the m ovi ng par ty. T hat is, th e n o n -m o v a n t sh o u ld b e g iv e n th e b e n e fit o f th e d o u b t. Cit y of Jacks on v. Sutton , 797 So. 2d 977 ( M i s s . 2001) ( quot i ng He ig le v . H e ig le , 771 So. 2 d 3 4 1 , 3 4 5 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 )) ( interna l ci tat ion s o m itted).

### 5

¶7. T he M cLem or es as s ert that the tr i al court ’ s f i ndi ng that the case shou l d hav e been br oughtunderthe M i s s i s s i ppi T or tC l ai m s A ctcontr adi ct s pr i orcas e l aw . Speci f i cal l y, the M cL em ores as ser tthat the tr i al cou rtde cis i on con tradi ct s B & W Far m s v. Mis s is s i

ppi T r anspor tati on Com m is s i on , 922 So. 2d 857 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2006)
. T he M T C as s ert s that B &W Fa r ms onl y r eaf

f i r m s the appl i cat i on of

the M i s s i s s i ppi T or tC l ai m s A ctt o thi s cas e. ¶8
. I n B &W Fa r ms , t he Cour t of A pp e a l s ( CO A ) a f f i r med the tr i a l c ou r t , f

i nd i ng t hat B & W f ai l ed t o pr ovi de s uf

f i ci entnot i ce t o the def

endantof the cl ai m s and gr ounds pur s uant to A rticle 3 , S e c tio n 1 7 o f th e M iss iss ip p i C o n stitu tio n , u n d e r w h ich re lief w a s s o u g h t. C l ear l y, s uch a f

i ndi ng i ndi cat es the vi abi l i ty of s uch a c l ai m i f

pr opernot i ce i s pr ovi ded. M oreove r, the p art i es agree t hat the M cL em ores provided n oti ce of the co nst i tuti on al cl ai m s. H ow e ve r , the M TC a s s e r t s tha tthe M i s s i s s i pp i Tor tCl a i ms Actpr ov i de s the e xc l us i ve
r emedy f ort he M cLem or es and t hatthey f ai l ed t o pl ead i t ; ther ef

or e s um m ary j udgm entw as pr oper . H ow ever , w e di s agr ee. ¶9. A rt i cl e 3, S ect i on 17 of the M i ssi ssi pp i C on st i tuti on st at es: Pr i vat e pr operty shal l notbe t aken ordamaged f orpubl i c us e, exce pton due c o m p e n sa tio n b e in g first m a d e to th e o w n e r o r o w n e rs th e re o f, in a m a n n e r to b e p re sc rib e d b y law ; an d w h e n e v e r a n a ttem p t is m a d e to tak e p riv a te pr operty f

ora us e al l eged t o be publ i c, the ques t i on w hetherthe cont empl at ed us e be publ i c s hal l be a j ud i ci al ques t i on, and, as s uch, det erm i ned w i thout r egar d t o l egi s l at i ve as s ert i on thatthe us e i s publ i c. M is s . C o n s t. A n n . a rt . 3 , § 1 7 . ¶10. T hi s C our tha s pr evi ous l y uphel d damages pur s uant t o thi s cons t i tut i onal pr ovi s i on. See Mis s . State H

i ghway Com m ’n v. Thom as , 2 02 S o. 2d 925 ( M i s s . 1967) ( hi ghw ay

### 6

comm i s s i on hel d l i abl e f orda m ages t o pr operty w her e, a s a r es ul tof hi ghw ay cons truct i on, th e n a tu ra l flo w o f w a ter fro m a re a in c re a se d a n d c a rrie d d irt, s a n d , c lay a n d o th e r m a ter ials in to a la k e lo c a te d o n T h o m a s ’ la n d ). See al s o Miss . S ta te Hig h w a

y Co m m ’n v. E n g e ll , 251 M i s s . 855, 171 S o. 2d 860 ( 1965) ( hi ghw ay comm i s s i on l i abl e f ordamage t o adj ace nt p ro p e rt y ). F u rt h e r, t h is c o n s titu tio n a l p ro v is io n is o n ly a p p lica b le in c a se s in v o lv in g p ro p e rty ta k e n fo r p u b lic u s e . B u rkett v. R oss , 2 2 7 M iss. 3 1 5 , 8 6 S o . 2 d 3 3 (M iss. 1 9 5 6 ). M o reo v er, thi s C our thas sai d t hat“[ n] o publ i c pol i cy of t he st at e can be a l l ow ed t o overr i de the pos i t i ve guar ant i es of

t he C ons t i tut i on, or di ves tper s ons of thei rt i t l e t o pr operty, exce pti n the w ay
w hi ch the l aw pr ovi des
. ” H il l v. W oo dw ard , 10 0 M iss. 87 9 , 8 8 9 , 5 7 S o . 2 9 4 (M iss. 1 9 1 1 ). ¶1 1. W hi l e t her e i s an ar gum entt hatt hi s C our thas di s t i ngui s he d c a s e s i nv ol vi ng negl i gence cl ai m s , s uch ar gum enti s notappl i cabl e her e. T he negl i gence cl ai m s i n the i ns t ant
cas e pert ai n t o T al bot
. T he ac t i on agai nstM T C is fort aki ng w i thoutj us tcompensa t i on p u rsu a n t t o the co n stitu tio n . T h is C o u rt h a s p re v io u sly fo u n d the lan g u a g e th a t “ [p ]riv a te p ro p e rty sh a ll n o t b e tak e n o r d a m a g e d fo r p u b lic u se ,” a s q u o ted p re v io u sly h e re in , is
w i thoutl i m i t at i on. Speci f i cal l y, thi s C our thas f

ound: T h e w o rd s a re w ith o u t l im itatio n o r q u a lifica tio n . T h e y e m b ra c e w ith in th e ir i nhi bi t i on al l thos e att empt i ng t o convertpr i vat e pr operty t o pu bli c use , art i f i ci al as w el l as natural per s ons , m uni ci pal and othercorpor at i ons al i ke; and they cove ral l damages of w hat everchar act er . . . . T he ci t i zen mustnow be hel d, unde rthi s ne w pr ovi s i on of ourf undament al l aw , t o be ent i t l ed t o due compensa t i on f

or , nott he t aki ng, onl y, of hi s prope r ty forpubl i c us e, butf or a ll d a m a g e s to h is p ro p e rty th a t m a y re su lt fro m w o rk s fo r p u b lic u se . H e is now s ecur ed i n hi s pr operty, and hi s use and enj oym entof hi s pr operty. T he b u rd e n s fo rm e rly b o rn e b y th e c iti z e n , res u lti n g fro m d a m a g e d o n e h is pr operty by a di m i nut i on ordes truct i on of hi s ri ghtt o us e and e nj oy hi s ow n, w er e des i gned by thi s new cons t i tut i onal rul e t o be pl ace d upon thos e by w h o se a c tio n th e d im in u tio n o r d e stru c tio n w a s w ro u g h t.

### 7

Cit y of V i cks burg v. Herm an , 7 2 M iss. 2 1 1 , 2 1 4 -15 , 1 6 S o . 4 3 4 , 4 3 5 (M iss. 1 8 9 4 ). ¶12. I n l at er cas es , thi s C our t adopt ed the tr end of di s t i ngui s hi ng s om ew hat s i m i l arcas es in v o lv in g n e g lig e n c e -b a s e d c la im s . See S tev e n s v . B e a v e r D a m D ra in ag e D ist. , 1 23 M i ss. 884, 86 So. 641 ( 1920) ( publ i c corpor at i on notl i abl e f ordam ages caus ed by negl i gence of
o ff ic e rs a n d a g e n ts ). See al s o State H

i ghway Com m ’n v. Kni

ght, 170 M i s s . 60, 154 So. 263 ( 19 34 )
. H oweve r , thi s Courtl a t e rc l a r i f i e d thi s i s s ue i n P arkerv. State H i ghw ay C om m is s i on , 173 M i s s . 213, 162 So. 162 ( M i s s . 1935) , i n f i ndi ng thati nj ury t o adj oi ni ng pr operty by the cha nge of gr ade i s damage w i thi n the cons t i tut i onal s ens e. W e s ay her e thatby i m pl i cat i on the s t atut e author i zed the paym entnot o n ly o f c o m p e n sa tio n fo r th e lan d , b u t fo r d a m a g e s a s w e ll, a n d c o n fe rre d a ll th e p o w e rs e m b ra c e d w ith in th e e m in e n t d o m a in c h a p ter u p o n th e sta te hi ghw ay comm i s s i on. B ut , i f w e shoul d be m i s t aken i n t hi s vi ew , s ect i on 17, C o n stitu tio n o f 1 8 9 0 , is se lf-e x e c u tin g . P rio r to th e a d o p tio n o f th is C o n stitu tio n th e L e g isla tu re c o u ld lim it a la n d o w n e r’s re c o v e ry to compensa t i on f

orthe l and appr opr i at ed f orpubl i c use , butas s ect i on 17 now exi s t s i ti s qui t e cl earthatany ef f or ton the par tof the L egi s l atur e t o s hi el d the governm entorany arm ther eof f r om paymentof

damages oc cas i oned by i ton the appr opr i at i on of

l and w oul d be f

ut i l e and of

no ef f ect . B ef

or e our C ons t i tut i on w as adopt ed, s ect i ons s i m i l art o the one her e undercons i der at i on had bee n cons trued by the court s of others t at es as bei ng s el f
- exec ut i ng. Sect i on 17 of

the C ons t i tut i on i s m andat ory. P arker , 173 M i s s . at222- 23. M or eover , thi s C our tf ound: T he comm on- l aw r emedy exi s t i ng i n f avorof the p roper ty ow nerf

or d a m a g e s to h is p ro p e rty , b e y o n d th e a p p ro p ria tio n th e re o f, is c lea r in th is c a s e . Th e Le g i s l a tu r e h a s g r a n t e d t h e h i g h wa y c o mmi s s i o n i n e x p r e s s t e r ms the r i ghtt o s ue and t o be s ued.

. . . T he court s of t he l and, i n or dert o pr es erve the l i berty and r i ght s of the peopl e, m us tadher e t o the pl ai n s t i pul at i ons of thatdocument , and i tw oul d be a sa d d a y in th e h isto ry o f a d e m o c ra tic c o n stitu tio n a l fo rm o f g o v e rn m e n t if th e c o u rts s h o u ld sw e rv e fro m the p lain m a n d a tes o f th e o rg a n ic la w , w h ich a ll the peopl e ar e bound t ogetheri n s ol emn com pactt o uphol d and pr es erve.

### 8

I d. at225. ¶13. I n the i ns t antcas e, the tr i al courtf ound a s a mat t erof

l aw thats um m ary j udgm ent w as p rop er. H o w ev er, w e find that the tri al co u rterred in g ran ti n g M T C ’s m o ti o n for su m m ary j ud gm ent and t hat, as a m at t er of l aw , the M cL em ores ar e enti tl ed t o b ri ng theircl ai m s. T her ef or e, thi s m att eri s r ever s ed and r emanded. ¶14. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. DI AZ , P. J . , EA S LE Y, RANDOL P H AND L AM AR, J J . , CONCUR. DI CK I NSON, J . , CO NCU RS I N RESULT ONLY. W ALLER, P. J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SE P A R A T E W R I T T E N O P I N I O N JO I N E D B Y SM I T H , C . J. , A N D C A R L SO N , J.

W A L L E R , P R E S ID IN G J U S T IC E , D IS S E N T IN G : ¶ 1 5 . Be c a u s e Ar t i c l e 3 , S e c t i o n 1 7 o f th e M i s s i s s i p p i Co n s t i tu t i o n d o e s n o ta p p l y t o c l a i ms
a ri s in g o u t o f n e g lig e n c e , I w o u ld a ff ir m s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f M T C
. ¶ 1 6
. T h is c a se c o n c e rn s p o st-a c q u isitio n d a m a g e s ste m m in g s o lely fr o m th e n e g lig e n t a c ts
o f T a lb o t. A fte r li stin g n u m e ro u s fa ilu re s a n d alle g a tio n s o f n e g lig e n c e o n th e p a rt o f T a lb o t, the M cL em o res’ co m p lai n t st ated tha t “[t ] h e n eg li g en t ac ti o n s o f the T albo t defe n d an ts are the pr oxi m at e ca us e and/ orpr oxi m at e ca us es of the damages t o the M cLem or e Pr operty, t he
va l ue of the M c Lemor e pr op e r ty, gr owi ng c r op s on the M c Lemor e Pr op e r ty, a nd t o the M cLem or es . ” T he com pl ai ntal s o not es thatthe M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof E nvi r onm ent al Q ual i ty ( M D E Q ) had l evi ed f i nes on T al bo tbeca us e of s om e of thei ract i ons . W hi l e the M c L e m o re s a ttem p t to fra m e th e ir c laim a g a in st M T C a s a ta k in g , th e g ro u n d s fo r th e ir c laim
a n d th e ird a m a g e s a ri s e s tr ic tly fr o m th e n e g lig e n c e o f T a lb o t.O thercas es appea rt o s ugges tthatpl ai nt i f f s m ay r ecove rdamages underSect i on 17 3 fo r c laim s b a se d o n th e n e g lig e n t co n stru c tio n , o p e ra tio n , o r m a in ten a n c e o f a p rojec t. T h o m p so n v. City o

f P h ila de lp h ia , 1 8 0 M iss . 1 9 0 , 1 7 7 S o . 3 9 (1 9 3 7 ); Hodges v. D r ew , 172 M iss . 6 6 8 , 1 5 9 S o . 2 9 8 (1 9 3 5 ); Co v in g to n Co u n ty v . W a tts , 120 M i s s . 428, 82 So. 309 (19 1 9 ); R a in e

y v. H in d s C o u n ty , 78 M i s s . 308, 28 So. 875 ( 1900)
. H ow ever , thi s C our thas di s t i ngui s hed Hod

ges and T

hom ps on beca us e i n both of thos e ca s es the C our tf ound s u ff ic ie n t c la im s to su s ta in a n a c tio n fo r d a m a g e s u n d e r S e c tio n 1 7 . P eavy , 188 M i s s . at175- 76. A ddi t i onal l y, thi s C our tdi s t i ngui s hed R ainey and W a tts b e c a u se th e re w e re sta tu tes in e a c h o f t h o s e c a s e s th a t im p o s e d lia b ility
. McClendon , 212 M i s s . at28 ( ci t i ng Ste phe ns , 123 M is s . 8 8 4 ). T hi s C our t ’ s opi ni on i n P arkerv. State H i ghw ay Com m is s i on , 173 M i s s . 213, 162 So. 162 ( 1935) , di d l i t t l e t o cl ar i f y the i s s ue. I n P arker , thi s Courtnot ed the di s t i nct i on m ade fo r c la im s g ro u n d e d in n e g lig e n c e . P arker , 173 M i s s . at222- 24. Fi ndi ng thatthe hi ghw ay c o m m iss io n ’s a c tio n s w e re a u th o riz e d a n d th a t th e c laim w a s n o t b a se d o n a n y n e g lig e n t ac t, th is C o u rt h e ld th a t a v ia b le c a u s e o f a c tio n e x is te d u n d e r S e c tio n 1 7 . Id
. at224. F ur therm or e, w hi l e the maj or i ty ci t es the C our tof A ppeal s opi ni on i n B& W Farm s v. Mis s is s i ppiT r anspor tati on Com m is s i on , 9 2 2 S o . 2 d 8 5 7 (M iss
. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 6 ), fo r su p p o rt, the C o u rto f A p p ea ls ne v er rea ch ed th e issue of w h ethe r Se cti o n 1 7 p erm it s d am ag es fo r a n e g lig e n c e -b a s e d c la im
. B &W Fa r ms , 9 2 2 S o . 2 d a t 8 5 9
. 

### 9 ¶17. I n pr ece dentdat i ng back al m os tone hundre d year s , t hi s C our tre peat edl y has r ej ect ed pl ai nt i f f s ’ att empt s t o r ecove rdam ages unde rSect i on 17 f ora s ui tbas ed s ol el y on
n e g lig e n c e . See State H i ghw ay Com m ’n v. McClendon , 212 M i s s . 18, 27- 29, 53 So. 2d 35, 3 9 -4 1 (1 9 5 1 ); Cit

y of Mer idian v. P eavy , 1 8 8 M iss . 1 6 8 , 1 9 4 S o . 5 9 5 (1 9 4 0 ); State H i ghw ay Com m ’n v. Kni

ght , 1 7 0 M iss
. 6 0 , 1 5 4 S o . 2 6 3 (1 9 3 4 ); Stephens v. B eave rD am D r ainage D ist. , 1 2 3 M iss . 8 8 4 , 8 6 S o . 6 4 1 (1 9 2 0 ); Ch id se y v. City o

f P a sc ag o u la , 102 M i s s . 709, 59 S o . 8 7 9 (1 9 1 2 ); s ee al

s o L e n o ir v . P o rte rs Cre e kW a tersh e d D ist. , 586 F. 2d 1081, 1092- 93 (6th C ir
. 1 9 7 8 ). T h e d o ctri n e o f so v ere ign im m u n ity p rotec ts a stat e fro m b eing su ed in tort 3
a b s e n t its c o n s e n t. See Mo h u n dro v. A lco rn Co u n ty , 675 So. 2d 848, 852 ( quot i ng G r im es
v. P e a rl R ive r V

a lley W a terS u p p ly D ist. , 9 3 0 F .2 d 4 4 1 , 4 4 3 -4 4 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 )). T h e sta te
c o m m u n ic a te s s u c h c o n s e n t in th e fo rm o f t o rt c la im s a c ts . Moh u n dro , 6 75 So
. 2 d a t852

### 10

( quot i ng G r im es , 9 3 0 F . 2 d a t 4 4 3 -44 ). If a tortclaim b ase d so lel y in n eg li g en ce w ere
a llo w e d to p ro c e e d a s a tak in g u n d e r S e c tio n 1 7 , the d o c trin e o f so v e re ig n im m u n ity w o u ld b e c ir c u m v e n te d
. ¶18. T hus , Sect i on 17 ha s “ no be ar i ng on the l i abi l i ty vel non of a [ publ i c] corpor at i on f or the unauthor i zed a ct s of i t s of f i cer s and age nt s, w hich l i abi l i ty m us ts t i l l be det erm i ned by the rul es of

comm on l aw as m odi f

i ed by s t atut e. ” Ste

phe ns , 1 2 3 M iss . at 9 0 0 ; s ee al s o 29A C
. J . S. § 167 ( 2007) ( “D amages caus ed by w i l l f ul , negl i gent , or i m properact s i n t he
cons truct i on of

an i m pr ovement , as w el l as damages so cau sed i n the oper at i on, or
m ai ntenance o f a publi c i m provem ent ar e n ot r ecov erabl e in t he con dem nati on proceed i ng s, the r emedy, i f

any, of the l andow neri n s uch ca s es bei ng an i ndepende nta ct i on f ordamages
o r a le g is la tio n c la im s b ill.” ). ¶19. I n McClendon , the pl ai nt i f f s as s ert ed a t aki ng by the s t at e hi ghw ay comm i s s i on due to f lo o d in g c a u s e d b y th e c o n s tru c tio n o f a h ig h w a y a n d a n a rt if ic ia l d itc h
. McClendon , 212 M i ss. at19 -21. T his C ou rtheld that com pen sat i on un der Sec t i on 17 w as notproper because th e p lain tiffs’ c laim s fo r d a m a g e s w e re d u e to th e h ig h w a y c o m m iss io n ’s n e g lig e n c e in fa ilin g to p ro p e rl y m a in ta in th e d itc h
. Id
. at29. T hi s C our tnot ed thatcompensa t i on under S ec ti o n 1 7 w o u ld h av e b ee n ap p rop ri ate if th e d a m a g e s h a d b ee n ca u sed b y the m ere
c o n s tru c tio n o f th e h ig h w a y o r th e a rt if ic ia l d itc h
. Id
. at28-29. S i m i l art o McClendon , the damages as s ert ed by the M cLem or es i n thi s cas e der i ved f r om T al bot ’ s negl i gent
c o n s tru c tio n a n d re p a ire ff o rt s .N ot abl y, M T C as s ert s thats um m ary j ud gm entw as appr opr i at e f orthe addi t i onal 4 re a s o n th a t T a lb o t w a s a n in d e p e n d e n t c o n tr a c to r. See Chis ol m v. Mis s . D ept

. of T r ansp. , 942 So. 2d 136, 141 ( M i s s . 2006) ( as a gener al rul e, an i ndepende ntcontr act or ’ s pr i nci pal i s notvi car i ous l y l i abl e f ort or t s comm i t t ed by the i ndepende ntcontr act or ) ( ci t i ng Heirs & W ro n g fu l D e a th B e n e

fic ia rie s o

f B ra n n in ge

x re l. T u c k e r v. H

in d s Cm ty. Co ll. D ist. , 743 S o . 2 d 3 1 1 , 3 1 8 (M is s . 1 9 9 9 ))
. 

### 11 ¶ 2 0
. T h e M iss iss ip p i T o rt C laim s A c t s e rv e s a s th e e x c lu s iv e c iv il re m e d y a g a in st a g o v e rn m e n ta l e n tity fo r s u its in to rt . Cit y of Jacks on v. Sutton , 797 S o. 2d 977, 980 ( 2001) (c itin g M iss . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -4 6 -7 (1 ) (S u p p . 1 9 9 8 )). H a v in g fa iled to p u rsu e th e ir c laim againstM T C un der the T ortC l ai m s A ct , the M cL em ores have n o further r ecou rs e against M TC. 4 ¶ 2 1
. F o r t h e a fo re m e n tio n e d re a s o n s , I r e s p e c tf u lly d is s e n t. S M I TH, C. J . , AND CA RL S ON, J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.