Case Name: Daphne MOSBY, Individually and on Behalf of Latasha Mosby, Her Minor Child v. Officers Andrew MOORE, Thomas Thornton and the City of Oxford, a Municipal Corporation, Acting By and Through its Police Department; Daphne MOSBY, Individually and on Behalf of Latasha Mosby, a Minor v. Officers Andrew MOORE and Thomas Thornton, Individually and in Their Official Capacities
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1998-06-04
Citations: 716 So. 2d 551
Docket Number: Nos. 95-CA-00672-SCT, 95-CA-01363-SCT
Parties: Daphne MOSBY, Individually and on Behalf of Latasha Mosby, Her Minor Child v. Officers Andrew MOORE, Thomas Thornton and the City of Oxford, a Municipal Corporation, Acting By and Through its Police Department. Daphne MOSBY, Individually and on Behalf of Latasha Mosby, a Minor v. Officers Andrew MOORE and Thomas Thornton, Individually and in Their Official Capacities.
Judges: PRATHER, C.J., SULLIVAN, P.J., and WALLER, J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 716
Pages: 551–562

Head Matter:
Daphne MOSBY, Individually and on Behalf of Latasha Mosby, Her Minor Child v. Officers Andrew MOORE, Thomas Thornton and the City of Oxford, a Municipal Corporation, Acting By and Through its Police Department. Daphne MOSBY, Individually and on Behalf of Latasha Mosby, a Minor v. Officers Andrew MOORE and Thomas Thornton, Individually and in Their Official Capacities.
Nos. 95-CA-00672-SCT, 95-CA-01363-SCT.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
June 4, 1998.
Suzanne G. Keys, Byrd & Assoc., Jackson, Gail Thompson, Oxford, for Appellant.
Thomas T. Dunbar, Dunbar Law Office, Louis H. Watson, Jr., Butler Snow O’Mara Stevens & Cannada, Jackson, for Appellees.

Opinion:
PITTMAN, Presiding Justice,
for the Court:
¶ 1. The plaintiff, Daphne Mosby, filed suit on April 7, 1994, on behalf of herself and her daughter, Latasha Mosby, against the defendants, Herbert Jeffries, the City of Oxford, and Officers Andrew Moore and John Doe. The suit was filed as a result of an automobile accident in which the defendant, Herbert Jeffries, rear-ended the plaintiffs' car while being pursued by the Oxford police. The accident occurred on December 24,1992.
¶2. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the suit was barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity as to the City, and also as to the police officers because the officers were sued only in their official capacities. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants on June 16, 1995, holding that the officers had not been sued individually and that the defendants were protected by sovereign immunity. Mosby moved the court to voluntarily dismiss Jeffries from the suit without prejudice. Mosby is appealing the June 16, 1995, decision and that appeal is Cause No. 95-CA-00672-SCT.
¶ 3. Thereafter, she filed a second complaint against the police officers in their individual capacities on July 26, 1995. In the second suit, Thomas Thornton replaced the previously named John Doe as a defendant. Defendants moved for dismissal, or in the. alternative, summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiffs claims were barred by sovereign immunity, res judicata, laches, and the statute of limitations. Alternatively, their basis for the motion was that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiffs claims. On December 8, 1995, the trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants holding that the officers were engaged in discretionary duties on the night of the accident, and that they were entitled to qualified immunity.
¶ 4. Mosby is also appealing that decision in Cause No. 95-CA-01363-SCT. The two cases have been consolidated on appeal. Mosby appeals to this Court from the lower court's grant of summary judgment in both cases and raises the following issues:
I. THE CITY OF OXFORD WAS NOT PROTECTED BY SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY IN DECEMBER 1992.
II. THE OFFICERS WERE NOT IMMUNE FROM SUIT IN DECEMBER 1992.
III. BECAUSE THERE EXIST FACTUAL DISPUTES OF A MATERIAL NATURE, THIS CAUSE MAY NOT BE RESOLVED VIA SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
¶ 5. On the night of December 24, 1992, Paul Hipp had stopped at an Exxon Service Station on the corner of University Avenue and South Lamar Boulevard in Oxford, Mississippi. As Hipp was getting out of his vehicle, Herbert Jeffries backed into Hipp's car. After hitting the car, Jeffries pulled forward and attempted to leave. Hipp ran to the passenger side of Jeffries' ear and jumped in, in an attempt to stop Jeffries from leaving. Jeffries cut his wheel sharply, and Hipp claims that he was slung from the ear. He managed to grab onto the door to keep his balance. Jeffries then left the Exxon Station, traveling north on Lamar where he passed an Oxford police officer on patrol. Hipp had run out into the street after Jef-fries. He flagged down the police officer who was Officer Andrew Moore. He told Officer Moore what had happened, and Officer Moore asked if the person who damaged Hipp's car'was in the car he had just seen on Lamar. - Hipp said yes, and Officer Moore began to search for Jeffries.
¶ 6. Officer Moore first spotted Jeffries turning west onto Adams Street. He followed him to the intersection of North 11th and Jefferson where he caught up with Jef-fries. At that point, Officer Moore initiated his blue lights in an attempt to stop Jeffries. Jeffries increased his speed pulling away from Officer Moore, and turned left onto North 9th Street.
¶ 7. Officer Moore was in radio contact with Officer Alan Ivy who said that he was at the top of the hill on North 9th, and that he was going to attempt to set up a roadblock with his car. He did so, but Jeffries was able to get around the roadblock by running up on the curb. Jeffries proceeded right onto West Jackson Avenue. Officers Moore and Ivy then turned on their sirens and followed Jeffries. Officer Moore stated in his deposition that his speed reached between 70 and 80 m.p.h. on the 30 m.p.h. road. Officer Moore saw Jeffries pass three cars and run two stoplights.
¶ 8. Officer Moore claims that he began to experience mechanical problems with his car and that he was unable to keep up with Jeffries. Mosby contests this assertion because there is no mention of it in the officers' report and no record of the car having been serviced soon after the 24th. Officer Moore contends that he lost sight of Jeffries for a moment, and that the next thing he saw were the tail lights of Jeffries' car running off the road and smoke from the accident. Officer Moore estimates that he was 1/8 mile behind Jeffries when the accident occurred.
¶ 9. Officer Thomas Thornton, Officers Moore and Ivy's shift supervisor, heard the radio communications concerning the pursuit. He sat in his parents' driveway and listened but did not communicate with Officers Moore and Ivy.
¶ 10. The car hit by Jeffries was driven by Camilla Pegues, Daphne Mosby's sister. Latasha Mosby, Daphne's daughter, was also in the car. Latasha received a cut lip in the accident. Daphne received serious injury leaving her paralyzed from the waist down.
¶ 11. Jeffries admitted that he had been drinking the night of the accident and also admitted to smoking marijuana which he thought must have been laced with cocaine. Jeffries pled guilty to D.U.I. and aggravated assault and is currently serving a twelve-year sentence in the State Penitentiary.
LAW
I. THE CITY OF OXFORD WAS NOT PROTECTED BY SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY IN DECEMBER, 1992.
A. Sovereignty of the City
¶ 12. The accident between Mosby and Jeffries occurred on December 24, 1992. In his order granting summary judgment to the City and to the police officers in the first case, the trial judge stated:
Upon re-hearing of the motion of the Defendant City of Oxford, et ah, the Court holds that the allegations involving the Defendants (on December 24,1992) were of a governmental nature and thus the City of Oxford is entitled to sovereign immunity under the laws of the 1992 Extraordinary Session, Ch. 3 § 1 and 2 (effective September 16, 1992). The individual police officers were not sued individually and therefore the suit is against the entity only. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 112 S.Ct. 358, 361 n. 1, 116 L.Ed.2d 301 (1991). The Court finds that under MCA § 11^46-3 participation in the Mississippi Municipal Liability Plan does not waive sovereign immunity under said statute. Morgan v. City of Ruleville, 627 So.2d 275, 279 (Miss.1993). Therefore, the Defendants are entitled to a dismissal with prejudice.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court holds that the City of Oxford is entitled to sovereign immunity for the actions of the police officers and this cause is dismissed with prejudice.
¶ 13. The claims against the City of Oxford made by Mosby are barred, as the judge ruled, by the special legislation passed by the Mississippi Legislature in September of 1992. During that special session, the Legislature repealed Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-6 (Laws of the 1992 Extraordinary Session, Ch. 3 § 2, September 1992), which this Court had held unconstitutional in Presley v. Mississippi State Highway Commission, 608 So.2d 1288 (Miss.1992). It also amended Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-3 to provide:
(1) The Legislature of the State of Mississippi finds and determines as a matter of public policy and does hereby declare that, except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, from and after the passage of House Bill No.2, 1992 First Extraordinary Session, the "state" and its "political subdivisions," as such terms are defined in Section 11-46-1, shall not be hable and shall be immune from suit at law or in equity on account of any wrongful or tortious act or omission, including but not limited to libel, slander or defamation, by the state or its political subdivisions, or any such act or omission by any employee of the state or its political subdivisions, notwithstanding that any such act or omission constitutes or may be considered as the exercise or failure to exercise any duty, obligation, or function of a governmental, proprietary, discretionary, or ministerial nature and notwithstanding that such act or omission may or may not arise out of any activity, transaction or service for which any fee, •charge, cost or other consideration was received or expected to be received in exchange therefor.
(2) The.immunity granted under subsection (1) of this section shall not be applicable to an incorporated municipality for any wrongful or tortious act or omission by such municipality or any employee of such municipality that arises out of the exercise or failure to exercise any duty, obligation or function of a proprietary nature.
Laws of the 1992 Extraordinary Session, ch.3 § 1 (September 1992).
¶ 14. The City of Oxford argues and we find that under Subsection (2) of Section 1 of Chapter 3, codified as Miss.Code Ann. § 11^46-3 (Supp.1992), only acts of an incorporated municipality which are proprietary in nature are excepted from sovereign immunity. In Jackson v. Smith, 309 So.2d 520 (Miss.1975), this Court said, "[i]t has long been the rule in this state that the establishment of and maintenance of the police department is a governmental function." Id. at 523 (citing City of Hattiesburg v. Geigor, 118 Miss. 676, 79 So. 846 (1918)); See also, Anderson v. Jackson Municipal Airport Authority, 419 So.2d 1010, 1014 n. 1 (Miss.1982) ("The following are 'governmental' functions: . establishment and regulation of schools, hospitals, poorhouses, fire departments, po:. lice departments, jails, workhouses, and pq-liee stations . ") (citing Jackson v. Smith, 309 So.2d 520 (Miss.1975) (police department)). Based on the case law and the statute, the City asserts that the maintenance of its police department was1' a governmental function, and therefore protected by sovereign immunity.
¶ 15. It is clear from a reading of Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-3 as amended and enacted during the Extraordinary Session, that Mosby's claim was governed by the statute. That statute took effect on September 16, 1992, three months before the accident. The Legislature intended to grant sovereign immunity to the state and its political subdivisions with the exception of municipalities engaged in proprietary functions. It did so in a special session in order that it would' take effect immediately and in order to give themselves time to draft the Mississippi Tort Claims Act which became effective on April 1,1993.
¶ 16. The City of Oxford was protected by sovereign immunity due to the Extraordinary Session legislation of September 1992. Furthermore, the establishment and maintenance of a police department is a governmental function and not a proprietary function. The City of Oxford was entitled to the protection of sovereign immunity in December 1992, and the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to the City.
B. Equal Protection
¶ 17. The plaintiff Mosby attacks the constitutionality of the statute allowing municipalities to purchase liability insurance and thereby waive immunity up to that amount. This law was codified in Miss.Code Ann. § 21-15-6 (1990). The City of Oxford did participate in the Mississippi Municipal Liability Plan, and the lower court held that that participation did not waive sovereign immunity, according to Morgan v. City of Ruleville, 627 So.2d 275, 280-81 (Miss.1993). In that case, this Court said that the Mississippi Municipal Liability Plan does not fit within the definition of insurance under Miss.Code Ann. § 83-5-5 (1991), which is general liability insurance sufficient to waive sovereign immunity pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 21-15-6 (1990), but is instead self insurance or self protection insufficient to waive sovereign immunity. Id.
¶ 18. Mosby argues first, that the statute violates equal protection because there was no mandatory requirement, that all political subdivisions purchase liability insurance. Mosby asserts that this statute violates equal protection because there is no rational reason for the Legislature to distinguish between citizens of one political subdivision and those of another.
¶ 19. "A state may confer benefits on some and not others under equal protection, 'so long as its decision is rational.'" Westbrook v. City of Jackson, 665 So.2d 833, 838 (Miss.1995) (quoting Doe v. Gaughan, 808 F.2d 871, 883 (1st Cir.1986)). "In apportioning limited resources, governments 'need not provide the same level of benefits to all recipients.'" Id. (quoting Baker v. City of Concord, 916 F.2d 744, 748 (1st Cir.1990)).
¶20. The Mississippi Municipal Liability Plan is a program of self protection for municipalities in the state of Mississippi, set up to minimize exposure and risk to the municipality. All funds contributed to the Plan are public funds from municipalities of the state. The purpose of contributing funds is to maintain a reserve fund or a savings fund for the payment of claims which are not insured and which are not covered by sovereign immunity-
¶ 21. Mosby did not allege in either her argument to the lower court or in her brief to this Court that the statute is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. This Court has held that protecting the public treasury is a legitimate legislative purpose. Wells v. Panola County Bd. of Educ., 645 So.2d 883, 897 (Miss.1994). We therefore find that the statute in question is rationally related to that legitimate purpose. Mosby has not shown otherwise. Because the statute is rationally related to a legitimate purpose, equal protection is not violated by conferring benefits on some and not all of the people of the state.
II. THE OFFICERS WERE NOT IMMUNE FROM SUIT IN DECEMBER 1992.
¶ 22. Mosby contends that the police officers in this case were not immune from suit in December 1992. In Mosby's first suit, the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants because it found that the police officers had not been sued in their individual capacities. Because the lower court found that the officers had only been sued officially, it reasoned that the first suit was in effect only a suit against the City of Oxford. It ruled that the City of Oxford was entitled to the protection of sovereign immunity, and therefore granted summary judgment to the City and its officers.
¶ 23. In the second suit, Mosby sued the officers in their official- as well as their individual capacities. The Court found in that suit that the suit against the officers in their official capacities was barred by the doctrine of res judicata because it had found that the City was protected by sovereign immunity in the first suit. It also ruled that the officers were entitled to the protection of qualified immunity in their individual capacities be7 cause they were' involved in discretionary duties at the time of the accident.
A. Suit #1 — NO. 95-CA-00672-SCT
¶ 24. This suit against the City of Oxford ended in a summary judgment against the plaintiff Mosby. The trial court found that the officers had been sued only in their official capacities and the lower court found that the City of Oxford was entitled to sovereign immunity. It therefore granted summary judgment to the City and to the officers. The trial court found that a suit against the officers in their official capacities was nothing more than a suit against the City.
¶ 25. In Daniels v. Sones, 245 Miss. 461, 147 So.2d 626 (1962), this Court held that a suit against members of the Board of Supervisors was against the members individually where the specific charges in the complaint implied a suit against the members in their individual capacities. Id. at 472, 147 So.2d at 629.
¶ 26. The fact that the plaintiff sought punitive damages in the first suit implies that the officers were sued individually because a municipality cannot be sued for punitives. In Gregory v. Chehi, 843 F.2d 111, 119-20 (3rd Cir.1988), the Court said:
It is clear, however, that the individual defendants are not sued solely in their official capacities in the federal action. Plaintiff seeks from each of them punitive, as well as compensatory damages. Punitive damages cannot be recovered from defendants in their official capacities. Thus, resolving doubts in favor of plaintiff, we will assume he is suing the individuals in their personal capacities as well.
Id.; See also Shabazz v. Coughlin, 852 F.2d 697, 700 (2nd Cir.1988) (request for punitive damages indicates personal nature of lawsuit). Further, where a qualified immunity defense is offered, this may indicate a suit against an officer in his individual capacity.
¶ 27. In Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985), the Supreme Court, observed that when a complaint does not clearly specify whether state officials are being sued in their individual or official capacities, the course of pro-: ceedings will often indicate the nature of the liability sought by the plaintiff. See also Fitzgerald, v. McDaniel, 833 F.2d 1516, 1520 (11th Cir.1987) (because defendants raised and litigated a defense of qualified immunity, the lawsuit was filed against them in their individual capacities); and Conner v. Reinhard, 847 F.2d 384, 394 n. 8 (7th Cir.1988) (defense of qualified immunity indicates action brought against defendants in individual capacity).
¶ 28. Based on this Court's decision in Daniels, supra, and on a review of Federal cases on point, we think it appropriate and judicially efficient to take the less stringent approach. Gregory v. Chehi supra; Kentucky v. Graham, supra; Fitzgerald v. McDaniel, supra. We find that based on the allegations raised in Mosby's complaint, the fact that she sought punitive damages against the officers, and that the officers raised the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, that Mosby did sue the police officers in their individual capacities. Therefore, the trial court erred in finding that Mosby had only sued the officers in their official capacities. As a result, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the officers on the basis of sovereign immunity. We find reversible error in the first suit and the second suit and we find that in both causes the plaintiff sued the officers in their individual capacities.
B. Suit # 2-95-CA-01363-SCT
¶29. In her second suit stemming from this accident, Mosby sued Officers Andrew Moóre and Thomas Thornton in their official and individual capacities. The trial judge again granted summary judgment to the defendants. He ruled that the officers, in their official capacities, were immune from suit under sovereign immunity, and also that suit was barred by res judicata. He also ruled that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities.
1. Official Capacity
¶ 30. We find that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to the defendant officers in their official capacities in the second suit. A suit against a public official in his official capacity is nothing more than a suit against the entity. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25, 112 S.Ct. 358, 116 L.Ed.2d 301 (1991). Therefore, because the City of Oxford was entitled to the protection of sovereign immunity, summary judgment was proper as to the City and to the officers. Additionally, Mosby was barred by the doctrine of res judicata from suing the officers in the second suit in their official capacities, as they had already been sued in that capacity in the first suit.
2. Individual Capacity
¶ 31. When officers or agents of the State of Mississippi are sued in a civil action, they enjoy qualified public official immunity. This Court has said that an official has
no immunity to a civil action for damages if his breach of a legal duty causes injury and (1) that duty is ministefial' in nature, or (2) that duty involves the use of discretion and the governmental actor greatly of substantially exceeds his authority and in the course thereof causes harm, or (3) the governmental actor commits an intentional tort. Beyond that, a,government official has no immunity when sued upon a tort that has nothing to do with his official position or decision-making function and has been committed outside the course and scope of his office.
Barrett v. Miller, 599 So.2d 559, 567 (Miss.1992)(quoting McFadden v. State, 542 So.2d 871, 877 (Miss.1989)).
¶ 32. In the second suit, Mosby sued the officers in their individual capacities. She first argues that the. officers were not protected by qualified immunity because they were performing ministerial duties. This Court in Barrett, distinguished between ministerial and discretionary duties. We said:
While there is no flexible rule to distinguish whether an act is ministerial or discretionary, the most important criteria is if the duty is one which has been positively imposed by law and in a manner or upon conditions which are specifically designated, the duty to perform under the condition specified, not being dependent upon the officer's judgment or discretion, the act and discharge thereof is ministerial.
Id.
¶ 33. Mosby argues that the officers in this case were simply following the established pursuit policy of the City of Oxford, and that therefore their duty was ministerial. She argues that this case is similar to the situation in Davis v. Little, 362 So.2d 642, 644 (Miss.1978), where this Court held that a county supervisor, while driving a county truck on county business which struck the plaintiff, was not entitled.to qualified immunity because the act of driving in a reasonable manner did not involve a discretionary decision-making process. Id. The case sub judice is obviously a different situation than that in Davis. The act of driving for police officers is a major part of their jobs. It is something that they must do in order to fulfill their duties. They do not drive simply to get from one place to another, instead they patrol. This type of driving does involve a discretionary, decision-making process and is distinguished by facts and job and duty requirement from Davis.
¶34. Furthermore, the pursuit policy under which these officers were operating did not specifically delineate how they should drive, but left much to the officers' discretion. Specifically, the act of continuing pursuit was dependent on the officer's judgment as the policy directs that he must continually question whether he should continue the pursuit. In fact, Mosby's own expert stated in his deposition that the officers had total discretion under the pursuit policy. We find that the officers in this case were operating under a discretionary, not ministerial duty at the time of the accident.
III. BECAUSE THERE EXIST FACTUAL DISPUTES OF A MATERIAL NATURE, THIS CAUSE MAY NOT BE RESOLVED VIA SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
¶35. This Court employs a de novo review on grants of summary judgment. Owen v. Pringle, 621 So.2d 668, 670 (Miss.1993). A trial court may grant summary judgment "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." M.R.C.P. 56(c). "A fact is material is it 'tends to resolve any of the issues, properly raised by the parties.'" Webb v. Jackson, 583 So.2d 946, 949 (Miss.1991) (quoting Mink v. Andrew Jackson Cas. Ins. Co., 537 So.2d 431, 433 (Miss.1988) (quoting Mississippi Rd. Supply Co. Inc. v. ZurichAmerican Ins. Co., 501 So.2d 412, 414 (Miss.1987))). The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. If, in this view, the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, then summary judgment should be granted. Otherwise, the motion should be denied. Brown v. Credit Ctr., Inc., 444 So.2d 358, 362 (Miss.1983).
¶ 36. The City of Oxford was granted summary judgment in the first suit on the basis of sovereign immunity, and we find that summary judgment was appropriate. However, the trial court erred in the first suit in finding that the officers were sued in their official capacities only. We find that the officers were sued in their individual capacities as well. The officers, in their official capacities, were granted summary judgment in both suits, and this was also appropriate because a suit against them was nothing more than a suit against the City of Oxford. Finally, the officers were granted summary judgment in their individual capacities in the second suit. The grant of summary judgment was not appropriate because the officers are not entitled to the protection of qualified immunity if they substantially exceeded their authority in the performance of their discretionary duties. Barrett, 599 So.2d at 567. There are disputed facts as to this question. Therefore, summary judgment was not proper as to the officers in their individual capacities. Cause No. 95-CA01363-SCT is reversed and remanded for a trial on the merits.
¶ 37. REVERSED AND REMANDED AS TO BOTH CAUSES FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.
PRATHER, C.J., SULLIVAN, P.J., and WALLER, J., concur.
MILLS, J., dissents in part with separate written opinion joined by'JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr. and SMITH, JJ.
BANKS, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with separate written opinion joined by MeRAE, J.
McRAE, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with separate written opinion.