Charles Carter v. The State of Mississippi, Mississippi Department of Transportation and Secretary of State for the State of Mississippi

── Charles Carter v. The State of Mississippi, Mississippi Department of Transportation and Secretary of State for the State of Mississippi ── Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi Date: May 12, 2026 Category: General IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2024-SA-01131-COA CHARLES CARTER APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, MISSISSIPPI APPELLEES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/05/2024 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. CHARLES W. WRIGHT JR. COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: LAUDERDALE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ROBERT KEVIN HAMILTON ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: STEVEN D. SLADE NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY DISPOSITION: REVERSED, RENDERED, AND REMANDED - 05/12/2026 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: EN BANC. EMFINGER, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. After a bench trial in a Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA) case, the circuit court entered a judgment in favor of the State Defendants, and Plaintiff Charles Carter appealed. Finding that the circuit court erred, we reverse the judgment, render a verdict in favor of Carter, and remand the matter to the circuit court for entry of a judgment consistent with this opinion. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2. On October 25, 2019, a dead tree located at 3810 Royal Road in Meridian, Mississippi, fell onto Carter’s moving vehicle and smashed in its roof, resulting in serious and permanent injuries to Carter. The tree was located on property owned by the State of Mississippi, which had acquired title to the subject property in 2016 due to the non-payment of taxes. ¶3. Carter filed a complaint on March 23, 2021, against Defendants State of Mississippi, Mississippi Department of Transportation, the Secretary of State for the State of Mississippi, the City of Meridian, and John Does 1-3. In the complaint, Carter alleged that a dead tree on the State-owned property fell onto his vehicle while he was driving down the road, and as a result, he sustained serious and permanent injuries.1 According to the complaint, “the existence of a large dead tree immediately adjacent to the roadway” presented “an unreasonable risk of danger to the public,” and “the tree, in the condition that it was in on the date of the incident, constituted a dangerous condition.” Carter also asserted that “[a]s owners of the property, the State Defendant(s) had a duty to remove dangerous conditions that presented a risk of harm to the general public while traveling on the street adjacent to the property,” and he contended that “it was reasonably foreseeable that to allow such a condition to continue to exist created a foreseeable risk of injury to the public.” Carter claimed that “[a]llowing a dead tree to remain on the State Defendant(s)’ property once it had actual or constructive notice constituted negligence on the part of the State Defendant(s).” ¶4. In addition to the claims of a “dangerous condition,” Carter argued that the defendants were liable on the basis of negligent inspection and maintenance. He alleged that “had the 1 On June 27, 2024, the circuit court granted the City of Meridian’s motion for entry of a final judgment and dismissal, and the City is not a party to this appeal. 2 State Defendant(s) acted with reasonable care and prudence in inspecting its property that abutted the roadway that was traveled by the public, it would have been apparent that the tree in question was dead and was dangerous to the public.” He claimed that “the condition had existed for a sufficient amount of time such that constructive notice existed as to the dangerous and defective condition,” and “[h]a