JACKSON, Miss. (Legal Newsline) - The Mississippi Department of Transportation and a road construction company will not be liable for the death of a woman who drove down a closed portion of highway and struck a crane.
The state Supreme Court on Aug. 17 overturned a Lee County ruling that denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment. The trial judge found plaintiff Dianne Brown-Bowens "had presented sufficient evidence to establish the basis of a government entity’s duty to warn" decedent Hattie Brown of the dangerous condition of Highway 245.
But the Supreme Court disagreed, finding Brown-Bowens failed to offer evidence that any act or omission by MDOT or Joe McGee Construction caused Brown's death.
"Although the evidentiary sufficiency is disputed, it is nonetheless undisputed that Hattie Brown would have driven past several warning signs and a barricade indicating a road closure prior to the collision," the ruling says.
"No witnesses, however, saw the collision. Even the exact time of the collision is unknown. In short, no competent summary judgment evidence in the record before us supports that any breach of any duty on the part of the Department or McGee Construction caused the collision.
"One can do no more than speculate about causation here, and speculation does not defeat summary judgment."
MDOT hired McGee for road construction and bridge replacement in Lee County and designed a temporary traffic control plan that included flashing warnings of a road closure at 1,000 feet and 500 feet, plus two barricades with a ROAD CLOSED sign on top.
On June 3, 2018, Brown drove down the closed portion of the highway and hit a stationary crane, which caused her death. A police report said she collided with the barricade and went another 200 yards before hitting the crane.
The report said there was "adequate warning signage," but Brown's daughter filed a wrongful death lawsuit later that year. The trial judge allowed negligence claims against the two defendants but dismissed her claims for strict liability and punitive damages.
The defendants appealed and found a favorable ruling at the Supreme Court, though Justice James Kitchens dissented. He said the majority failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.