Opinion ID: 1772465
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the trial court properly granted greenville's motion for summary judgment.

Text: ¶ 10. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial judge correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Greenville. En route to granting summary judgment, the trial judge held that Greenville was exempt from liability under the Mississippi Torts Claims Act, which states in pertinent part: (1) A governmental entity and its employees acting within the course and scope of their employment or duties shall not be liable for any claim: ... (v) Arising out of an injury caused by a dangerous condition on property of the governmental entity that was not caused by the negligent or other wrongful conduct of an employee of the governmental entity or of which the governmental entity did not have notice, either actual or constructive, and adequate opportunity to protect or warn against; provided, however, that a governmental entity shall not be liable for the failure to warn of a dangerous condition which is obvious to one exercising due care; [or] (w) Arising out of the absence, condition, malfunction or removal by third parties of any sign, signal, warning device, illumination device, guardrail or median barrier, unless the absence, condition, malfunction or removal is not corrected by the governmental entity responsible for its maintenance within a reasonable time after actual or constructive notice. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-9(1)(v) & (w). Mitchell and Jordan assert that Greenville, through its contractor, Hovas, created the dangerous condition and failed to warn drivers of the potential danger. Upon review of the record, there is no doubt that Greenville entered into a contract for the construction of a boat ramp and that the road was under construction at the time of the accident. However, the record indicates that precautions were taken to warn motorists of the dangerous road condition. ¶ 11. The affidavit of Steve Hovas, an officer of Hovas, reveals that the portion of Lake Front Road where the accident occurred had been cut into as part of the construction project on November 13, 1998. Hovas further stated that when he left the construction site at noon, twelve to thirteen hours prior to the accident, warning signs had been placed on both the north and south portions of Lake Front Road, indicating Road Closed to Thru Traffic. The placement of the signs on that date and time was corroborated by affidavit testimony of the project engineer, Bill Burle, Jr. ¶ 12. Further corroboration came from the affidavit of Kenneth Westbrook, a security guard for Greenville Gravel Company. At approximately 5:00 p.m. on November 13, 1998 (the afternoon prior to the early morning accident of November 14, 1998), Westbrook observed orange cones and a large warning sign in the middle of the roadway on the north side of the construction indicating that the road was closed. However, when Westbrook went to the scene shortly after the accident, at approximately 1:00 a.m. on November 14, 1998, he noticed that the sign previously upright at the north end was now lying face up in approximately the middle of the roadway with the orange cones scattered. In their rebuttal brief, Mitchell and Jordan concede that warning signs were posted at the site at the end of the work day. However, they argue that Greenville made no subsequent inspection of the signs for a period of seven or eight hours before the accident. ¶ 13. Their argument is misplaced because § 11-46-9(1)(w) does not require a governmental entity to actively patrol areas containing warning signs to see if a third party has removed the signs. The statute exempts the governmental entity from liability for the removal of warning signs  unless the absence, condition, malfunction or removal is not corrected by the governmental entity responsible for its maintenance within a reasonable time after actual or constructive notice.  Id. (emphasis added). ¶ 14. Mitchell and Jordan rely on pre-MTCA cases to place a duty on Greenville to patrol the streets to find downed warning signs. However, even prior to the enactment of the MTCA, this Court held that a municipality is not an insurer of the safety of motorists on its streets. City of Jackson v. Locklar, 431 So.2d 475, 479 (Miss.1983). There is nothing in the record to indicate that Greenville knew or should have known that the sign was tipped over. While Westbrook's affidavit indicates that he had seen the sign blown down by the wind in the past, it does not indicate that he ever reported that fact to Greenville.