Strait v. Pat Harrison Waterway District

Citations: 523 So. 2d 36; 1988 Miss. LEXIS 114Docket: No. 57561

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court; March 1, 1988; Mississippi; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Richard Kim Strait appeals a summary judgment favoring Pat Harrison Waterway District regarding personal injuries he sustained at the district's water-slide amusement park, "Okatibbee Splash Down Country," on July 4, 1984. The court ruled that Strait's claims were barred by sovereign immunity, which the district invoked as an absolute defense. Strait's complaint sought damages of $462,226.12 and was based on injuries suffered during a water-slide ride. 

The legal context includes the Mississippi Code Annotated provisions on sovereign immunity, particularly Mississippi Code Annotated, 51-15-120, which allows the district to purchase general liability insurance. Following the 1982 ruling in Pruett v. City of Rosedale, the Mississippi legislature enacted the Sovereign Immunity Act of 1984, extending the immunity period to 1988 for the state and its subdivisions. Claims arising before this date are governed by prior case law and statutory law. As Strait's claim arose in 1984, it falls under the pre-Pruett framework, which requires explicit statutory authority for lawsuits against the state or its subdivisions.

The court's decision indicates that no such authority exists for Strait's claim under the relevant statutes, leading to the denial of his motion to reconsider the judgment.

Premiums for insurance acquired under this section are to be paid from the district's general fund, with the section set to repeal on October 1, 1988. The appellee obtained two liability insurance policies totaling $2.5 million, which were active during the appellant’s accident. The appellant argues that 51-15-120 implicitly waives sovereign immunity up to the amount of the purchased insurance. However, case law, including *French v. Pearl River Valley Water Supply District* and *Joseph v. Tennessee Partners, Inc.*, establishes that mere acquisition of liability insurance does not waive sovereign immunity unless there is explicit statutory authority indicating such a waiver. Specifically, 51-15-120 does authorize insurance purchase but does not clarify its implications for sovereign immunity. Research identifies three categories of statutes regarding liability insurance for government entities: (1) those affirming continued immunity despite insurance, (2) those waiving immunity to the extent of coverage, and (3) those silent on the implications for immunity. Section 51-15-120 falls into the third category. Most relevant statutes include repealer provisions linked to the Sovereign Immunity Act of 1984, indicating legislative intent regarding immunity. Group 2 statutes typically provide clear language about waiving immunity only to the insurance coverage level, ensuring that any claims are limited to insurance proceeds.

The language in question represents a limited waiver of a unique right belonging to the State, with similar provisions found in about half of the statutes allowing state entities to purchase liability insurance. The absence of such a provision in the remaining statutes suggests that the legislature deliberately chose not to apply the waiver there. Waiver of sovereign immunity can only be implied from clear and unambiguous statutes; thus, the lack of a waiver in statute 51-15-120 makes it ambiguous regarding sovereign immunity. The Sovereign Immunity Act of 1984 establishes that sovereign immunity continues to be in effect until 1988, and when interpreting legislative intent, all related statutes must be read together. Consequently, the authority granted to purchase liability insurance under 51-15-120 does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Regarding whether the Pat Harrison Waterway District was engaged in a proprietary enterprise that would remove it from the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the appellant provided no legal authority to support this argument. While there is established Mississippi law differentiating between proprietary and governmental functions, this distinction has predominantly been applied to municipalities. The proprietary/governmental test for immunity waivers is generally not applicable to the state. Thus, the proprietary nature of the District's actions is irrelevant to the issue of sovereign immunity in this case. Therefore, both issues regarding waiver of sovereign immunity are rejected.

The Pat Harrison Waterway District entered into a contractual relationship with Richard Kim Strait, raising the question of whether the District incurred mutually binding obligations by accepting benefits from that relationship. The appellant cited Miss. State Department of Welfare v. Howie to argue that entering a contract waives sovereign immunity for breach claims; however, the case is distinguished as it involved a lease breach, not a tort. In contrast, in Sims v. Etowah County Board of Education, the Alabama Supreme Court recognized that a ticket to an event constitutes a contract, allowing for a breach of contract claim alongside negligence, although the latter was barred by sovereign immunity. The appellant, however, only pursued a negligence claim based on the duty to a business invitee, which arises from tort law, not contract law. Appellate courts require parties to maintain the same legal theory originally presented in trial courts. Consequently, since the contract claim was introduced for the first time on appeal, it was deemed procedurally barred. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding no reversible error. Appendices detail various statutes regarding sovereign immunity, including express reservations and waivers related to different entities.