Opinion ID: 1133631
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: whether the trial court erred when it dismissed l.w.'s lawsuit because discretionary acts of negligence were alleged together with a general allegation of negligence.

Text: ¶ 10. L.W. contends that her complaint was sufficient under notice pleadings, because she alleged negligence and demanded relief both generally and specifically. Therefore, she continues, if the trial court found some of those acts barred as discretionary duties under sovereign immunity, there still should remain sufficient allegations under notice pleadings to allow the lawsuit to proceed. This is not true. ¶ 11. The Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA) provides the exclusive civil remedy against a governmental entity or its employee for acts or omissions which give rise to a suit. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-7(1) (Supp.1998) [1] ; Moore v. Carroll County, Mississippi, 960 F.Supp. 1084, 1088 (N.D.Miss.1997)(The remedy provided pursuant to the MTCA is exclusive of any other state law remedy sought against a governmental entity or its employee.). Any tort claim filed against a governmental entity or its employee shall be brought only under the MTCA. Id. ¶ 12. The MTCA waives sovereign immunity from claims for money damages arising out of the torts of governmental entities and their employees from and after October 1, 1993, for political subdivisions. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-5(1) (Supp.1998); Chamberlin v. City of Hernando, 716 So.2d 596, 600 (Miss.1998). The MTCA defines a school district as a political subdivision and a governmental entity. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-1(g), (i) (Supp.1998); see also Gressett v. Newton Separate Mun. Sch. Dist., 697 So.2d 444, 446(¶ 4) (Miss.1997). However, certain circumstances are exempted from this waiver of immunity. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-9 (Supp.1998). ¶ 13. In Stanton & Associates v. Bryant Const. Co., this Court stated: Rule 8(a), Miss.R.Civ.P., requires only that in its complaint a plaintiff provide (1) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and, (2) a demand for judgment for the relief to which he deems himself entitled. Relief in the alternative or of several different types may be demanded. Rule 8(e), Miss. R.Civ.P., then provides (1) Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct. No technical forms of pleading or motions are required. When a complaint is tested via a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the sufficiency of the complaint is in substantial part determined by reference to Rule 8(a) and (e). The leading federal case, Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80, 84 (1957), construing an identically worded provision of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, states that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitled him to relief. 464 So.2d 499, 505 (Miss.1985)(emphasis added & footnotes omitted). If the exemptions to waiver of sovereign immunity under the MTCA apply as the trial court concluded, then it is beyond doubt that L.W. can prove no set of facts to support his claim and entitle him to relief. The MTCA is the exclusive remedy for L.W.'s claims.