I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 1 - CA- 0 0 1 2 0 - S CT CO NSOLI DATED W I TH NO. 2 0 0 7 - CA- 0 0 3 2 2 - S CT

AND NO. 2 0 0 6 - CA- 0 0 1 8 5 - S CT M ICHAEL CRAW

FORD
v. CU S TOM S IGN C OM

P AN Y a / k / a CU S TOM S IGN COM P AN Y OF BA T ES VI L L E, I NC . f / k / a CU S TOM S IGN COM

PANY OF GRENADA, I NC. D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 02/ 13/ 2009 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . A L B E R T B . S M IT H , III COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: COAHO M A COUN TY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LANT: DERE K D. HOPS ON, S R. A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL EE: G ER A LD H . J A CK S KAT HY R . CL AR K M ARY M c KAY LAS KER J A M I E FER G U SO N J A CK S NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY 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 - 03/ 27/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E R A N D O L P H , P . J. , P I E R C E A N D K I N G , JJ. PI ERCE, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1 . M i chae l C r aw f

or d i ni t i a t e d l e ga l a c t i on i n c i r c ui tc ou r ta ga i ns tD ef endant s A l ex J or dan, M orr i s T r ans port at i on, and C us t om Si gn C om pany ( C us t om ) bas ed on a mot or v eh icl e a cc iden t. F ir st, C raw ford fi led a p eti ti o n to pe rpe tuate testi m o n y in the C ir cu itC o u rt of C oahoma C ount y, M i s s i s s i ppi , t o depos e J or dan and M orr i s T r ans por t at i on i n an att empt

### 2

to id e n tify a n y a d d iti o n a l d e fe n d a n ts. T h e c a se w a s re m o v e d to fe d e ra l co u rt. A fte r re m o v a l, C r aw f or d f i l ed a c om pl ai nti n f

eder al cour t . C r aw f

or d subs equent l y w as gr ant ed l eave f r om the f eder al courtt o f

i l e a c om pl ai nti n the C i r cui tCourtof C oahoma C ounty agai ns tJ or dan, M o rri s, an d C u stom . T h e c ase w as later d ism issed b y the fed era l co u rtb ase d o n p rem ature re m o v a l s in c e re m o v a l o c c u rr e d b e fo re C ra w fo rd h a d fi le d a c o m p la in t. ¶2. T her eaf

t er , Cra w f

or d f i l ed a f i r s ta m ended com plai nt, st yled and nu m bered as a s epara t e ca us e of

act i on i n ci r cui tcourt , pur s uantt o the s avi ngs s t atut e. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 1 5 -1-6 9 (R ev . 2 0 1 2 ). D efendan t s then m ov ed to hav e bo th the ori ginal com plai nt and fi rs t amended compl ai ntdi s m i s s ed bas ed on the ar gum entthatthe f eder al
- courtacti on w as di s m i s s e d r a the rtha n r e mand e d, w hi c h woul d b a rCr a w f or d f r om pr oc e e di ng on ei t her
c o m p la in t in c ir c u it c o u rt . A l t ernat i vel y, D ef endant s as s ert ed thatthe s ui tw as barr ed by the g e n e ra l th re e -y e a r s ta tu te o f l im ita tio n s . M is s . C o d e A n n . § 1 5 -1 -4 9 . D ef endant s al s o al l eged that the o n e-y ea r sav ing s statue d id no t ap p ly b ec au se th e fe d era l cou rtg ran ted C raw ford ’s vol unt ary m ot i on t o di s m i s s , w hi ch w as nota di s m i s s al fora m att erof f or m i n acc or dance
w ith M is s is s ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -6 9 . ¶3 . T h e tri al co u rtgran ted D efe n d an ts’ m o ti o n to dism iss w ith p rejud ice, an d C raw ford appea l ed t o thi s C our t . W e r ever s ed the di s m i s s al , f i ndi ng thatthe f

eder al court ’ s di s m i s s al
w as f ora mat t erof

f or m – l ack of

s ubj ect - m att erj ur i s di ct i on. T hi s C our tal s o f ound thatt he
or i gi nal compl ai ntf

i l ed dur i ng Cra w f

or d’ s l eave f

r om f eder al courtw as a nul l i ty, s i nce the
cas e ul t i m at el y w as di s m i s s ed r athert han r emanded by the f eder al court . N everthel es s , the f i r s tamended compl ai ntw as f i l e d a f t e rthe f e de r a l c our t ’ s di s m i s s al ; ther ef or e, i tw as deemed

### 3

val i d and t i m el y f

i l ed w i thi n one yea raf

t erthe di s m i s s al ; thus the s avi ngs s t atut e appl i ed. A c c o rd in g ly , th e c a s e w a s re m a n d e d . ¶4. O n r emand, C r aw f or d s ett l ed w i th J or dan and M orr i s T r ans por t at i on. C us t om f i l ed i t s ans w erand mot i on f

ors um m ary j udgm ent , s ubm i t t i ng thatC r aw f or d’ s cl ai m s w er e barr ed b y th e sta tu te o f re p o se . M iss . C o d e A n n . § 1 5 -1 -4 1 . C ra w fo rd filed m u lti p le r e sp o n se s to C u sto m ’s m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t, alleg in g fra u d u len t co n c e a lm e n t, th e ina p p lica b ili ty o f th e statute o f rep o se, and w aive r. T h e tri al co u rtg ran ted C u stom ’s m o ti o n for su m m ary j ud gm ent based on the st atute of repose being ap pli cable, thu s barring C raw for d’s cl ai m s. C ra w fo rd fi le d a m o tio n to re c o n s id e r, w h ic h w a s d e n ie d b y th e tr ia l c o u rt . ¶5. C r aw f

or d now appea l s , r eques t i ng thi s C our tre m and t he cas e f ortr i al beca us e ( 1) the sta tu te o f re p o se d o e s n o t ap p ly in this ca se , o r a ltern a tiv e ly , (2 ) C u sto m w a iv e d th e rig h t to s uch def ens e. Fi ndi ng t hi s caus e of act i on shoul d be r ever s ed and r emanded f orf ur ther factual det erm i nati on s r egardi ng the ap pli cabil i ty o f the st atute of r epo se, w e w i l l no tadd res s th e iss u e o f w a iv e r. T h e re fo re , this o p in io n w ill d isc u ss w h e th e r th e trial c o u rt e rre d in fi nd i ng that there w as no genu i ne i ssue of m at eri al f

act , thu s m aking the st atute o f r epo se a p p lic a b le to C u s to m , w a rr a n tin g a ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f l a w . S TATEM ENT OF THE FACTS ¶6. I n 2001, J or dan, w hi l e empl oyed by M orr i s T r ans por t at i on, w as dr i vi ng an ei ght eenw heel tr act ortr ai l erthr ough C l arks dal e, M i s s i s s i ppi . A s J or dan appr oached a r ai l r oad vi aduct , he not i ced a 13' 6" c l ear ance w arni ng w hi l e al s o not i ci ng a “W el come t o C l arks dal e”
s i gn thatw as af

f i xed t o the underpas s . J ordan bel i eved thatthe bott om por t i on of the s i gn appea r ed t o hang sl i ght l y bel ow t he underpas s . F ear i ng he w oul d notbe abl e t o cl earthe s i gn

### 4

hangi ng f

r om the underpas s , Jor dan st opped t he t r act or - tr ai l eri n t he i nnernor thbound l ane t o i ns pectthe s i gn bef or e att empt i ng t o pr ocee d thr ough the underpas s . C ons equent l y, C ra w fo rd, trav eli n g i n th e sam e lan e, ap p roa ch ed th e situ ati o n an d w as u n ab le t o a v o id
c ra s h in g in to th e e ig h te e n -w h e e le r. ¶7. I n 1997, C us t om w as hi r ed t o cr eat e the “W el come t o C l arks dal e” s i gn t o hang f r om a r ai l r oad underpas s i n C l arks dal e. T he s i gn’ s pl ace m entw as t o coverdamaged concr et e on the vi aduct . I n m aki ng the s i gn, C us t om us ed s i gn boar d f r om a s i gn or i gi nal l y m ade f or N or thw es tR egi onal M edi cal C ent er , w hi ch w as no l ongeri n use. D ur i ng t he depos i t i on of an empl oyee of

C us t om , the empl oyee s t at ed thatthe s i gn w as “r ew or ked” t o m eett he
s peci f i cat i ons of

the new s i gn. T he empl oyee f ur therpr ovi ded thatonl y the pane l s f r om t he
or i gi nal s i gn w er e us ed and thatC us t om ha d t o make the tubi ng f orthe backs i de of

the new
s ig n . ¶ 8 . C u sto m ’s e m p lo y e e a lso p ro v id e d th a t th e o rd e r w a s p lac e d b y th e C ity o f C lar k sd a le thr ough J ames B ut l er , w ho w as t he D i r ect orof Publ i c W or ks fort he ci ty att hatt i m e. T he
or derre ads , “B i l l t o C i ty of C ’ dal e, ” “B uyerJames B ut l er . ” T he i nvoi ce r ef l ect i ng payment
r eads , “Sol d t o C i ty B eaut i f i cat i on. ” J ames But l er ’ s af f i davi ts t at es thathe w as a mem ber of the C i ty B eaut i f

i cat i on C om m i t t ee a tthe t i m e the or derw as pl ace d, a nd thatthe or derw as pl ace d on behal f

of the comm i t t ee and n ot t he ci ty. C us t om s t at ed thati tdi d nothave the
ac tual ch ec k s from the o rde r, bu t the rec o rd d o es c o n tai n o n e c h ec k stub rea d ing “D ep o sit o ry of the C i ty of

Cl arks dal e. ” Repai r s w er e m ade t o the s i gn af t eri t s or i gi nal pl ace m ent . T he
re p a ir in v o ice re a d s, “ S o ld to C ’d a le F lo w e rs a n d G a rd e n ,” “ Ja m e s B u tler,” w h ile th e re p a ir
or derr eads , “Sol d t o C i ty of C ’ dal e, ” “J ames But l er . ”

### 5

¶9 . C u sto m ’s e m p loy ee also ex p lai n ed th at, i n som e instan ce s, C u sto m w o u ld o b tain perm i t s f ors i gns bef

or e they w er e i ns t al l ed, buti n thi s i ns t ance , i tw as underthe bel i ef that th e c ity w o u ld o b tain its o w n p e rm it th ro u g h Ja m e s B u tler. Ja m e s B u tler r e c o u n ted th a t, t o h is k n o w led g e , th e sig n co m p a n y w a s re sp o n sib le fo r o b tain in g the p e rm it, an d a n y p e rm it
w oul d have be en obt ai ned thr ough the St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi , be caus e the ci ty di d notow n the vi aduct . T he r ecord d oes n otcont ai n any perm i tbei ng obt ai ned f orthe i ns t al l at i on of

t he
s ig n o r a n y d o c u m e n ta tio n re v e a lin g th e o w n e r o f t h e v ia d u c t. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶ 1 0 . T h e tr ia l c o u rt ’s g ra n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t i s r e v ie w e d d e n o v o . Stuart v. U ni v. of Miss. Med. Ctr. , 21 So. 3d 544, 546 (M i s s . 2009) ( ci t i ng U .S . Fid . & G u a r. Co . v. Ma rtin , 9 9 8 S o . 2 d 95 6 , 96 2 (M iss. 20 0 8 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted)). T h is C o u rtw il l affi rm the tri al co u rt ’s gr antof s um m ary j udgm enti f

i ti s cl earthatn o genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al f

actexi s t s and a ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f l a w is w a rr a n te d . Id . at547 ( ci t i ng M iss . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ); Ma rtin , 9 9 8 S o . 2 d a t 9 6 2 ). A N A L Y S IS W het her t he t ri al court err ed i n f i ndi ng no genu i ne i s s ue of m at eri al f

act a s to w h e th e r th is c a u s e o f a c ti o n is b a r r e d b y th e s ta tu te o f r e p o s e . ¶11. A det erm i nat i on of w hethera caus e of act i on i s b arr ed by t he st atut e of re pos e may be pr oper l y deci ded by t he t r i al cour ti f i ti s cl eart hat“r eas onabl e m i nds ” w oul d notdi s agr ee on the dec i s i on, otherw i s e; the i s s ue s houl d be present ed bef or e a j ury f

ordet erm i nat i on. Sm it h v. S an ders , 485 So. 2d 1051, 1053 ( M i s s . 1986) ( ci t i ng G ul f por t Fer tiliz erCo. v. McMur phy , 114 M i s s . 250, 75 So. 113, 114 ( 1917) ) . T hi s C our thas i ns truct ed thatthe tr i al

### 6

c o u rt, w h e n d e c id in g o n a m o tio n fo r su m m a ry jud g m e n t, m u st c o n sid e r “. . . ad m iss io n s in pl eadi ngs , a ns 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. ” Sm ith , 485 So. 2d at1054 ( quot i ng B r ow n v. Cr edit Center , I nc. , 444 So. 2d 358, 362 ( M i s s . 1983) ) . T he evi dence bef or e the tr i al courtm us tbe cons i der ed i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the nonmovi ng party. Id . T he t r i al courtm us tnottr y i s s ues of f act ; r ather , i ti s t o deci de w hetheri s s ues exi s tthat
m u s t b e d e te rm in e d a t tr ia l. E v a n J o h n so n & S o n s C o n str., In c . v. S ta te , 877 So. 2d 360, 365 ( M i s s . 2004) ( ci t i ng Br o wn , 4 4 4 S o . 2 d a t 3 6 2 )) . ¶1 2. A f

t erhear i ng or a l a r gu mento n the matt e r , thi s Courtf i nd s tha tg e nui ne i s s ues of
m at eri al factexis tconcerning the actual ow nershi p o f the v i adu ctfr om w hich the si gn han gs, and w hetherC us t om ’ s w or k i nvol ved the des i gn, pl anni ng, s upervi s i on of cons truct i on, or cons truct i on t o r eal pr operty as i s re qui r ed by t he s t atut e of r epos e. M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s s t atut e of repose st at es: N o act i on m ay be br ough tto recoverdamages f ori nj ury t o pr operty, r eal or per s onal , orf

oran i nj ury t o the per s on, ar i s i ng outof any def i ci ency i n the des i gn, pl anni ng, s upervi s i on orobs ervat i on of cons truct i on, orcons truct i on of an i m pr ovementt o r eal pr operty, and no ac t i on m ay be br oughtf or co n tr ibu ti o n o r i n d em n ity for d am ag es su stai n ed o n ac co u n t of su ch injury exce ptby pr i orw r i t t en agr eem ent pr ovi di ng f ors uch contr i but i on or i ndemni ty, agai ns tany per s on , f i r m orcorpor at i on per f or m i ng orf

urni s hi ng the des i gn, pl anni ng, s upervi s i on of cons truct i on orcon s truct i on of s uch i m pr ovementt o r eal pr operty m or e than s i x ( 6) year s af t er the w r i t t en acc ept ance oractual occupancy o r us e, w hi cheve roccur s f i r s t , of s uch i m pr ovementby the ow ner t her eof . T hi s l i m i t at i on s hal l appl y t o act i ons agai ns tper s ons , f

i r m s and corpor at i ons per f or m i ng orf

urni s hi ng the des i gn, p lan n in g , su p e rv isio n o f co n stru c tio n o r co n stru c tio n o f su c h im p ro v e m e n t to re a l p ro p e rt y . . . . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 15- 1- 41 (R e v . 2 0 1 2 ).

### 7

¶ 1 3 . T h e re c o rd in d ic a te s th a t a n a s s u m p tio n h a s b e e n m a d e sta tin g th a t th e v iad u c t is
ow ned by the s t at e r atherthan by the C i ty of C l arks dal e; how ever , no evi dence has been
s ubm i t t ed a f

f i r mi ng the a s s umpt i on . A dd i t i on a l l y, t e s t i mony d i f f e r s a s t o who w as r es pons i bl e f

orobt ai ni ng a perm i tt o hang the s i gn, and eve n t he exis t ence of an ac tual perm i t . Forthe el ement s of the s t atut e of

r epos e t o be s at i s f

i ed, ow ner s hi p of

the vi aduct
m us tbe es t abl i s hed. ¶14. T he s t atut e pl ai nl y s t at es that ther e m us t be w r i t t en acc ept ance , occupa ncy, or us e of the i m pr ovementby the ow ner . O n a mot i on f ors um m ary j udgm ent , the movantbear s t he b u rd e n o f p e rs u a d in g th e tr ia l c o u rt th a t th e re is n o g e n u in e is s u e o f m a te ri a l f a c t. Br o wn , 444 So. 2d at362. T he nonmovi ng party m us tpr es ent“s i gni f i cantpr obati ve evi dence ”
e s ta b lis h in g iss u e s o f f

a c t th a t a re tria b le . Br o wn , 444 So. 2d at364 ( ci t i ng U n i on P lan ters N at ’l L eas ing, I

nc. v. W oods , 6 8 7 F . 2 d 1 1 7 , 1 1 9 , 3 4 F ed . R . S erv . 2 d 1 4 9 0 (5th C ir . 1 9 8 2 )). H er e, nei therpart y has adequa t el y s how n w ho i s the ac tual ow nerof the vi aduct . A tt he
su m m a ry -ju d g m e n t h e a rin g b e fo re th e tria l c o u rt, C u sto m in d ica ted th a t a c tu a l o w n e rsh ip is notpert i nentto t he anal ys i s , beca us e the s i gn w as i n us e and oc cupyi ng the pr operty f r om th e m o m e n t itw a s in sta lle d b y C u s to m . N e v e rth e les s, th e o c c u p a n c y o r u se e lem e n ts fa il h e re b e c a u s e it m u s t b e s h o w n th a t th e o c c u p a n c y o r u s e is b y th e o w n e r. ¶15. Fur ther , i f

a perm i tactual l y exis t s , i tw i l l ai d i n s uppor tof w r i t t en ac cept ance by
w h o e v e r iss u e d th e p e rm it, b u t n o p e rm it h a s b e e n p ro v id e d fo r th e p u rp o se s o f th is a p p e a l. A ccor di ngl y, ow ner s hi p m us tb e est abl i s hed pr oper l y bef or e a de t erm i nat i on can be m ade
on w hetherthe s t atut e of r epos e appl i es t o C us t om , an d the tr i al courterr ed by notf i ndi ng th e o w n e rs h ip o f th e p ro p e rt y to b e a g e n u in e iss u e o f m a te ri a l f a c t. See Sm ith , 485 So. 2d

### 8

at1055 ( tr i al courtdi d nothave e vi dence bef or e i tt o es t abl i s h thatno genui ne i ssue of
m a ter ial fa c t ex iste d p ro v in g w h e n p lain tiff d isc o v e re d h is in ju ry su c h th a t d e fe n d a n t sh o u ld have been gr ant ed a j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw bas ed on the appl i cat i on of the s t atut e of lim ita tio n s ). ¶16 . A dd i t i on al l y, w hetherthe st atute of repose m ay be assert ed b y C ust om as a defense cannotbe de ci ded w i thoute s t abl i s hi ng thatCust om w as r es pons i bl e f orthe des i gn, pl anni ng, s upervi s i on of

cons truct i on, orcons truct i on t o r eal pr operty. A s pr evi ous l y m ent i oned, C us t om ’ s empl oyee’ s depos i t i on s t at ed thatthe si gn ori gi nal l y m ade f orthe hos pi t al w as “r ew or ked” t o m eetthe r equi r ement s of the C l arks dal e s i gn. T he t es t i m ony a l s o s etf or t h t hat onl y the pane l s of

the or i gi nal s i gn w er e us ed i n the cr eat i on of the C l arks dal e s i gn, and the backs i de of

the s i gn w as al l new l y m ade. B as ed on the cur r entcont ent s of the r ecor d,
r eas onabl e mi nds coul d di f f eras t o w hethert he s i gn w as r evamped ornew l y cons truct ed. A s a re s u lt, th is u n c e rt a in ty s h o u ld b e c la ri fi e d b y a ju ry ’s d e te rm in a tio n . Sm ith , 485 So. 2d at1053 ( ci t i ng G ul

f por t Fer tili z erCo. , 1 1 4 M is s . 2 5 0 , 7 5 S o . a t 1 1 4 ). ¶17. T her ef

or e, the tr i al court err ed i n gr ant i ng sum m ary j udgm ent w hen thes e genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al f

actexis tan d m ustbe r es ol ved t o det erm i ne w hetherC us t om m eet s t he
r equi r ed el ement s of

ow ner s hi p and of

des i gn, pl anni ng, s upervi s i on of cons truct i on, or c o n s tru c tio n to re a l p ro p e rt y , m a k in g th e s ta tu te o f r e p o s e a n a p p lic a b le d e fe n s e . CO NC L US I ON ¶18. Fi ndi ng genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al f act exi s t , w e r ever s e the s um m ary j udgm entand
re m a n d th is c a se to th e C irc u it C o u rt o f C o a h o m a C o u n ty fo r a fa c tu a l d e ter m in a tio n in
acc or dance w i th t hi s opi ni on.

### Craw ford ’s comp laint alleg es that: 1 

### 53 . Cu stom Sig n Co . is strictly liable for th e impro per d esignof th e sign. . .

. 55 . T he sign wa s at t

he tim e i t l ef

t thecontrolof Cus tom

Sign Co. des igne d in a d efective manner. . . . 56. . . . As a re sult of

thedes ign de fe ct , the s ign f ai le d to f unction a s e xpec te d

. . . . 9 ¶ 1 9 . RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. W A L L E R , C .J ., R A N D O L P H , P .J ., K I T C H E N S , C H A N D L E R A N D K I N G , J J ., CO NC UR . L AMAR , J . , DI S S E NT S W I T H S E P AR AT E W RI T T E N O P I NI ON J O I N E D B Y D I C K I N S O N , P .J ., A N D C O L E M A N , J . L AMAR , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶20. T o s ay thatthi s cas e has notpr ocee ded i n a st rai gh tli ne t o res olut i on i s a huge
u n d e rsta tem e n t. In d ism iss in g th e fe d e ra l ac tio n , the fe d e ra l co u rt o b se rv e d th a t “ . . . th is
c a s e h a s p ro g re s s e d fr o m a p ro c e d u ra l c o n u n d ru m to a p ro c e d u ra l q u a g m ir e . . . .” U n fo rtu n a tely , I se e to d a y ’s d e c isio n a s o n ly a d d in g to th e c o n fu sio n , an d I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. ¶21 . C raw for d ap peals the g rantof sum m ary j ud gm ent ar gu i ng tw o is sues: 1) the appl i cabi l i ty of

the s t atut e of

r epos e t o s i gns on a hi ghw ay; and 2) w ai ver of the st atute- of- repose defense by C ust om S i gn s. W i thoutaddr es s i ng ei theri s s ue pr es ent ed, the maj or i ty f i nds thats um m ary j udgm entw as im p ro p e r b e c a u se tw o q u e stio n s o f m a ter ial fa c t ex ist: 1) ow ner s hi p of

the vi aductand 2) ques t i ons as t o w hetherC us t om Si gns w as r es pons i bl e f orthe des i gn, pl anni ng, s upervi s i on of cons truct i on, orcons truct i on t o r eal pr operty. 1

### 10

¶2 2 . S ec ti o n 1 5 -1-4 1 o f th e M issi ssipp i C o d e, co m m o n ly kn o w n as a st atute o f rep o se, b ars act i ons af

t era per i od of

“si x year s af

t ert he w r i tt en acc ept ance oractual occupa ncy orus e, w hichever occu rs f

i rst , of s uch i m provem entby the ow nerther eof . ” I agr ee w i th C us t om Si gns thatactual ow ner s hi p of the vi aducti s i rr el evantt o thi s anal ys i s beca us e the dat e the
s ig n w a s p u t in to u s e is k n o w n . ¶23. I w oul d f

i nd that the ci r cui t court pr oper l y gr ant ed sum m ary j udgm ent i n thi s cas e. T he s i x- yearper i od of

pr es cr i pt i on s etouti n Sect i on 15- 1- 41 began t o run atthe l at es tw hen the s i gn w as puti nt o us e. T he r ecor d r ef l ect s thatthe s i gn w as i ns t al l ed on the vi aductand puti nt o us e i n J une 1997 – a fa ctt hatappar ent l y i s notdi s put ed. T her ef or e, the dea dl i ne f

or any ac t i on t o be br ought“for i njur y . . . ar i s i ng outof def i ci ency i n the des i gn, pl anni ng, s upervi s i on orobs ervat i on of cons truct i on, orcons tructi on o f an i m pr ovementt o r eal p rop erty . . . ” w as six y ea rs later, in Ju n e 2 0 0 3 . T h e fi rstc o m p lai n t w as fil ed in fed era l cou rt i n N ovember2003. W i thoutre gar d t o w ho ow ns t he vi aductor w ho i s s ued the perm i t , the sta tu te o f re p o se h a s ru n . I w o u ld a ffirm th e trial c o u rt. DI CKI NS ON, P . J . , AND COL EM AN, J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.