Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries
Articles Posted in Injury Law
Mississippi Dept. of Transportation v. Nosef
The issue before the Supreme Court in this case concerned an interlocutory appeal of the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) which sought review of the denial of its motion for summary judgment in a wrongful-death action filed by the beneficiaries of A.J. Cowart (Nosef). Cowart drove into an unmarked culvert and flipped his car. Cowart was taken to the hospital where he later died. Nosef filed this suit against MDOT, claiming that MDOT's failure to place warning signs around the culvert resulted in the accident that caused Cowart's death. MDOT claimed in its motion that it was immune from liability under the state Tort Claims Act. The circuit court denied the motion, finding that the law imposed a ministerial duty to place warning signs around highway culverts which had not been abrogated or repealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with the circuit court and affirmed the denial of summary judgment.
View "Mississippi Dept. of Transportation v. Nosef" on Justia Law
Alston v. Pope
Plaintiffs Shirley and Robert Alston filed suit against Defendants Justin Pope and T.K. Stanley, Inc. seeking damages they claimed resulted from a motor-vehicle accident in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. The circuit court dismissed the case on grounds of forum non conveniens. The Alstons then filed suit in Alabama. The suit was dismissed because Alabama's statute of limitations for the claim had expired. The Alstons thereafter filed a motion for relief from judgment, under Rule 60(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure at the circuit court, claiming the circuit court's previous dismissal was void because Defendants had failed to file a written stipulation with the court, waiving the right to assert a statute-of-limitations defense. The circuit court denied the Alstons' motion and the Alstons appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the matter for an adjudication on the merits after finding the circuit court abused its discretion by denying the Alstons' Rule 60(b) motion. Defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. After its review, the high court found that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the circuit court's decision to deny the Alstons' Rule 60(b) motion, Accordingly, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and reinstated and affirmed the circuit court's judgment denying the Alstons' Rule 60(b) motion.
View "Alston v. Pope" on Justia Law
GGNSC Batesville, LLC v. Johnson
In a wrongful death action against a nursing home, the nursing home moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the nursing home resident was the third-party beneficiary to the admission and arbitration agreements signed by his sister. The trial court denied the motion, finding that no valid contract was signed by someone with the legal authority to do so, and the nursing home appealed. Because the resident's sister lacked the authority to contract for him, and thus no valid contract existed, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration. View "GGNSC Batesville, LLC v. Johnson" on Justia Law
Karpinsky v. American National Insurance Company
In a slip-and-fall case, Laura Karpinsky alleged that she sustained injuries when she fell in a puddle in a shopping mall. The Circuit Court found that Karpinsky had failed to offer any evidence that her fall was caused by negligence attributable to the Defendants, and entered summary judgment against her. The Court of Appeals found that the circuit court had erred and reversed the summary judgment order. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and, finding that the circuit court properly granted summary judgment in this case, reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated and affirmed the order of the circuit court. View "Karpinsky v. American National Insurance Company " on Justia Law
City of Jackson v. Gardner
Alexander Gardner sued the City of Jackson, alleging that he had suffered a broken leg when one of the City's police officers forced him to sit down while in handcuffs. The City filed for summary judgment, which was denied by the trial court. On review of the City's interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's denial of summary judgment, finding that the officer's conduct did not rise to the level of reckless disregard for Gardner's safety and well-being. View "City of Jackson v. Gardner" on Justia Law
City of Jackson, Mississippi v. Sandifer, Jr.
In this Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA) case, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether the circuit court erred in finding the City of Jackson (the City) liable for the death of Tawanda Sandifer. Tawanda Sandifer was a chronic runaway. Tawanda’s mother, Mildred Sandifer, testified at trial that Tawanda began running away from home for extended periods of time. Tawanda ran away approximately seventeen times before she ran away for the last time in April 2005. Mildred testified that she had filed a runaway petition for Tawanda every time she had run away, and that Jackson Police Department (JPD) had taken Tawanda into custody on a few occasions. In 2006, approximately nine months after running away, a then fifteen-year-old Tawanda died as a result of blunt-force trauma after being beaten by her boyfriend, Toice Wilson. Tawanda’s parents, on behalf of her wrongful-death beneficiaries, filed suit against the City of Jackson and several police officers, in their official and individual capacities, for, among other claims, the wrongful death of Tawanda. The Sandifers alleged that the City caused or contributed to Tawanda’s death by ignoring its own policies with regard to runaways; by failing to investigate Tawanda’s claims in 2004 that she was having sex with a JPD officer; by negligently failing to train, hire, supervise, instruct, monitor or control its employees; by failing to maintain an adequate system to hire, train, supervise, instruct, monitor, and/or control its employees; by allowing Tawanda to be subjected to assault, battery, physical, mental, and sexual abuse; and by failing to timely apprehend Tawanda and deliver her to her parents and other appropriate agencies despite knowledge of her status as a runaway. The circuit court ultimately concluded that the City’s failure to fully investigate Tawanda’s case “caused [Tawanda] to succumb to the brutal and fatal actions of Toice Wilson” and that Wilson and the City were jointly responsible for Tawanda’s death. The circuit court assessed damages in the amount of $1 million. The City then appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the City was immune from liability for the alleged misconduct of its employees at issue in this case under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act. Therefore, the Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court.
View "City of Jackson, Mississippi v. Sandifer, Jr." on Justia Law
University of Mississippi Medical Center v. Foster
Tamika Foster died after giving birth at the University of Mississippi Medical Center (UMMC). Her estate filed suit against the Center. After a verdict for the plaintiffs, UMMC appealed, claiming that the plaintiffs produced nothing more than an unreliable autopsy report to establish medical negligence, and that the trial judge erred in refusing to allow two doctors to testify about the autopsy. But because the Supreme Court found sufficient evidence in the record to support the verdict and because UMMC failed to make a proffer of the doctors' expected testimony, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and reinstated and affirmed the circuit court's decision.
View "University of Mississippi Medical Center v. Foster" on Justia Law
Hanson, Jr. v. Disotell
After the trial judge granted the defendants summary judgment, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for trial. More than four years later, the trial judge, finding the plaintiff had failed to prosecute his claim, entered a final judgment as to all defendants. Because the Court was unable to say the trial judge abused his discretion, affirmed.
View "Hanson, Jr. v. Disotell" on Justia Law
In the Matter of the Estate of Brian Cole
In this interlocutory appeal, Ford Motor Company (Ford) wanted to preserve a confidential settlement agreement between it and the Estate and wrongful-death beneficiaries of Brian Cole (the Coles). The case on appeal was a separate action between the Coles, their attorneys, and among the attorneys themselves regarding expenses, a contingency-fee agreement, and a fee-sharing agreement. The chancellor denied Ford's motion and its "Notice of Intent to Seek Closure of Proceedings and Sealing of Documents." Before the Supreme Court, Ford raised three issues: (1) whether the settlement agreement was a public, judicial record or a private contract, which should be enforced; (2) whether the state's policy encouraging settlement agreements and the parties' interest in abiding by the terms of that agreement were sufficient grounds to protect the settlement from public scrutiny; and (3) whether there was any overriding public interest which would require disclosure of the terms of the settlement agreement. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the settlement agreement was between private parties, did not involve issues of public concern, and was unnecessary to resolve the parties' disputes. Thus, the Court concluded that chancery court erred, in part, by denying Ford's motions.
View "In the Matter of the Estate of Brian Cole" on Justia Law
Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company v. Travis
Michael Travis died in 1997 when a train struck his vehicle at a railroad crossing. His mother, Mary Travis, filed a wrongful-death suit against Illinois Central Railroad Company and its employees (collectively "Illinois Central") in Circuit Court. Trial was held in October 2009, and the jury assessed damages in the amount of $6.5 million. Based on the jury's allocation of fault, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Travis in the amount of $4,875,000. Illinois Central filed this appeal. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, finding that the trial court erred in denying Illinois Central's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, because the evidence did not support the jury’s verdict. View "Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company v. Travis" on Justia Law