Opinion ID: 1603534
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: does the mississippi accident contingent fund statute violate section 17, article ii of the mississippi constitution of 1890, by taking private property without due compensation, namely, a chose in action which has inured to the benefit of sammy wells?

Text: Wells contends that the Accident Contingent Fund violated Section 17, Article III of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890, by taking private property in the form of a chose in action which has inured to his benefit, without due compensation. His argument is that having sustained personal injuries due to the negligence of the Panola County school bus driver (imputed to the Panola County Board of Education through the doctrine of respondeat superior), a chose in action has inured to his benefit. He contends that the courts, which protect private property from involuntary takings by the State, should also protect him against a negligent maiming. The Board argues generally that the legislature may abolish a common law cause of action, or may limit an established right of action, so long as an appropriate remedy is substituted or there is a rational basis for such action. Article 3, Section 17 of the Mississippi Constitution provides: Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use, except on due compensation first being made to the owner or owners thereof, in a manner to be prescribed by law; and whenever an attempt is made to take private property for a use alleged to be public, the question is whether the contemplated use be public shall be a judicial question, and, as such, determined without regard to legislative assertion that the use is public. Wells' argument is creative, but not persuasive. This Court's takings jurisprudence has concerned the rights of property owners  typically real property owners  to be compensated where the State's action somehow diminishes the value of their property. We have never construed the clause to apply to a cause of action, or a right to sue, as Wells seems to suggest it should be applied. As discussed above, the legislature may abrogate common law causes of action, and alter or substitute remedies through statutory schemes. Moreover, it may be noted that the legislature may bar recovery entirely, even where a remedy exists, through statutes of repose and statutes of limitations. None of these actions have been held to be a taking as that term has been interpreted by this Court. In sum, Wells' argument that the Accident Contingent Fund worked a taking of his property is without merit