Opinion ID: 1706880
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the statute is an unconstitutional retroactive law

Text: ¶ 13. Finally, Mrs. Fortune contends that the amended statute, effective April 1, 1993, is an unconstitutional retroactive law. She asserts that application of the statute to the case sub judice would deprive her of a vested right. Most of the provisions of the Tort Claims Act are solely prospective in their application, but § 11-46-3 clearly contains language of a retroactive nature. This Court held in Cole v. National Life Insurance Company, 549 So.2d 1301, 1305 (Miss.1989) that: [T]he legislative intent ... must be considered in terms of the following two accepted rules of statutory consideration: (1) It is well settled in Mississippi ` ... that prospective operation only will prevail, unless a contrary intention is manifested by the clearest and most positive expression.' (citing Mladinich v. Kohn, 186 So.2d 481, 484 (Miss.1966)), and (2)[I]t is our duty to adopt a construction of the statutes which would purge the legislative purpose of any constitutional invalidity .... (citation omitted). Thus, this Court has indicated that we will enforce a statute whose retroactivity is expressed with the clearest and most positive expression so long as the statute is not unconstitutional. ¶ 14. This Court considers it unnecessary to consider the constitutionality of the retroactive enforcement of Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-3 in the present appeal, however, given that, as noted earlier, Presley is solely prospective in its application. Therefore, sovereign immunity applies to the 1989 accident through an application of Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-6, and Lee County has no need to avail itself of the provisions of § 11-46-3. The ruling of the trial court is affirmed. ¶ 15. JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. BANKS, JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., SMITH and MILLS, JJ., concur. WALLER, J., concurs in result only. McRAE, J., dissents with separate written opinion joined by SULLIVAN and PITTMAN, P.JJ.