Opinion ID: 46231
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Mississippi Tort Claims Act

Text: 90 The jury found the MRHA, Murphy and Wilson negligent under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act for accepting Mayor Johnson's erroneous statements about the impending condemnation of Town Creek and for relying on those statements (without conducting an investigation into their veracity) to issue housing choice vouchers to the Town Creek tenants. The jury considered, yet rejected, an affirmative defense that exempts governmental entities and their employees from tort liability based upon the exercise or performance [of] ... a discretionary function or duty ... whether or not the discretion be abused. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-9(d) (2001). We find no conflict in substantial evidence as to whether the issuance of housing vouchers during a declared state of emergency qualifies as a discretionary act under the MTCA, and we accordingly reverse the district court's denial of the MRHA, Wilson's and Murphy's motion for judgment as a matter of law on this question. 91 Waiver of a state's sovereign immunity, like waiver of any constitutional right, is strictly construed in favor of the holder of the right. . . . [T]he MTCA's exemptions to Mississippi's waiver should be liberally construed in favor of limiting liability. In re Foust, 310 F.3d 849, 864 (5th Cir.2002) (citations omitted). The basis for the immunity given to government officials is in the inherent need to promote efficient and timely decision-making without fear of liability. This . . . works to encourage free participation and hinder fear that goes with risk-taking situations and the exercise of sound judgment. Mississippi Dep't of Transp. v. Cargile, 847 So.2d 258, 268 (Miss.2003). 92 The Mississippi Supreme Court has adopted a two-part analysis for determining when governmental conduct is discretionary: (1) whether the activity involved an element of choice or judgment; and if so, (2) whether the choice or judgment in supervision involves social, economic or political policy alternatives. Bridges v. Pearl River Valley Water Supply Dist., 793 So.2d 584, 588 (Miss.2001); see also City of Jackson v. Powell, 917 So.2d 59, 73 (Miss.2005). Conversely, the court has held that governmental conduct is ministerial, and thus not entitled to immunity, if the conduct is imposed by law, and its performance is not dependent on the employee's judgment. Cargile, 847 So.2d at 267. 93 A wide variety of government conduct has been held to involve the implementation of social, economic or political policy, including the manner in which a police department supervises, disciplines and regulates its police officer, City of Jackson v. Powell, 917 So.2d 59, 74 (Miss.2005); the decision to grant or deny parole, Doe v. State ex rel. Mississippi Dep't of Corr., 859 So.2d 350 (Miss.2003); the placement or non-placement of traffic control devices or signs, Barrentine v. Mississippi Dep't of Transp., 913 So.2d 391 (Miss.App.2005); the acts or omissions of high school football coach which caused a player to suffer heatstroke during practice, Harris ex rel. Harris v. McCray, 867 So.2d 188 (Miss. 2003); and the decision of emergency medical personnel to use a load and go approach on an expectant mother. Sanders v. Riverboat Corp. of Mississippi-Vicksburg, 913 So.2d 351 (Miss.App. 2005). 94 On the other hand, where the law expressly proscribes certain conduct, the government official has no discretion to engage in that conduct, and, likewise, where the law expressly requires certain conduct, an official may not, in the exercise of discretion, abstain. See, e.g., City of Jackson v. Lipsey, 834 So.2d 687 (Miss. 2003) (where an officer failed to use his siren, as required by law, in response to an emergency dispatch, the discretionary exception was not available); Coplin v. Francis, 631 So.2d 752, 755 (Miss.1994) (where a governmental entity had failed to build a bridge to certain specifications, as required by statute, the discretionary exception was not available). Furthermore, even when the government official is acting in accordance with a statutory command, such that the official is implementing policy, not making it, the act is ministerial and not entitled to the discretionary exception. See Barrett v. Miller, 599 So.2d 559, 568 (Miss.1992) (the good faith execution of a search warrant is a ministerial act, and not entitled to the discretionary exception). 95 Applying these principles to our facts, we find no evidence that either Murphy or Wilson violated any statutory duties by issuing housing-choice vouchers to the tenants of Town Creek. Although trial testimony elicited many instances of Murphy's (or Wilson's) violation of HUD regulations, these violations related only to the administration of the Mod Rehab program. Indeed, Urban Developers' expert on HUD regulations acknowledged that the federal regulations were silent on the issuing en masse of housing choice vouchers to everyone in a complex where some of the units have been damaged by natural disaster. Their expert also acknowledge that housing authorities may adopt provisions in their administrative plans to help families affected by natural disasters. 96 In the absence of regulations to the contrary, Congress has vested public housing authorities with the maximum amount of responsibility and flexibility in program administration. 42 U.S.C. § 1437. The MRHA board has furthermore vested the executive director with the discretion in an emergency to issue (or not issue) vouchers, a discretion that squarely implicates social, economic, and political policy considerations. Indeed, granting such immunity for exercise of discretion during a declared state of emergency is consistent with the aims of the MTCA, which works to hinder fear that goes with risk-taking situations, and to encourage timely decision-making without fear of liability. Cargile, 847 So.2d at 268. 18 97 We find no conflict of substantial evidence on the question of whether Murphy's and Wilson's actions were discretionary. Their actions were exercises in judgment involving social policy and they and MRHA were therefore entitled to immunity from tort liability in respect thereto.