Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Richard Pierce had silicosis. Having worked for many years as a sandblaster, preparing surfaces for painting, Pierce sued, among multiple defendants, sellers of sand including Dependable Abrasives, alleging that Dependable's failure to provide adequate warnings of the dangers of the inhalation of respirable silica caused his silicosis and rendered Dependable strictly liable. The jury returned a verdict for Dependable Abrasives and the trial court granted Pierce a new trial. Dependable Abrasives filed an interlocutory appeal with the Supreme Court. But, although the injury to Pierce was substantial, no causal link was established between the Dependable Abrasives product, Diamond Blast sand, and Pierce's injuries. As such, the Supreme Court concluded the jury's verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. View "Dependable Abrasives, Inc. v. Pierce" on Justia Law

Yvonne Lovett was employed as a security guard for Delta Regional Medical Center. While on duty, Lovett slipped and fell. As a result of her fall, Lovett experienced injuries to her back and to her right knee. Months after returning to work at Delta, Lovett experienced dizziness and weakness and sought treatment. Subsequently, Lovett was diagnosed as having suffered a mini-stroke. Delta covered the costs of Lovett's related medical treatments and paid her disability benefits during the time in which she could not work. Lovett filed two workers' compensation claims based on the two events, which were consolidated. The administrative judge found certain subsequent medical expenses were not related to her employment and would not be covered. Both parties sought review by the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission. After review, the Supreme Court found that substantial evidence supported the Commission's finding that Lovett did not receive a thirty percent loss of wage-earning capacity. However, when the Commission reversed the administrative judge's finding, it failed to then consider Lovett's functional loss. The case was remanded for the Commission to conduct findings on Lovett's functional loss; the Supreme Court affirmed the Commission in all other respects. View "Lovett v. Delta Regional Medical Center" on Justia Law

Early one morning in 2010, Chantel Jobes’ vehicle left the southbound lane of Highway 11, crossed the northbound lane and crashed into a concrete railroad trestle. Jobes was seriously injured in the accident, and she filed a complaint against Norfolk Southern Railway Company, the Mississippi Transportation Commission, and the Mississippi Department of Transportation. The trial judge denied the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Although stated in a variety of ways, defendants argued simply that the trial judge erred when he did not grant summary judgment in their favor. After review, the Supreme Court agreed, reversed and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of defendants. View "The Alabama Great Southern Railroad Co. v. Jobes" on Justia Law

The City of Horn Lake contracted with Phillips Construction Company and its owner Michael Phillips to work on a sewer project. Two employees of Phillips, Bertram Hill and David Mooneyhan, were working near the bottom of a trench that was seventeen feet deep when the walls of the trench suddenly collapsed. Mooneyhan was killed, and Hill was injured. Mooneyhan's beneficiaries and Hill (collectively "Plaintiffs") sued the City for Phillips' negligence under respondeat superior and also alleged that the City had negligently hired Phillips. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the City. Plaintiffs appealed. Finding that the City only acted in a supervisory role over the project, the Supreme Court concluded that was not enough to trigger a master-servant relationship for the elements of respondeat superior. The Court found that the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City was proper, and therefore affirmed the judgment. View "Hill v. City of Horn Lake" on Justia Law

William Brantley filed a personal injury action against the City of Horn Lake seeking to recover monetary damages for injuries he sustained due to the alleged negligence of a member of the City's fire department. In 2010, Brantley lacerated his forehead while repairing his pickup truck at his home in Horn Lake. Brantley called for an ambulance to transport him to a nearby hospital. Stephen Lowery was a member of the ambulance crew that responded to Brantley's call. Upon arriving at his home, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel bandaged Brantley's wound, and he was transported to the hospital in the ambulance. Lowery drove the ambulance. As the ambulance crew was unloading Brantley at the hospital, Lowery lost control of the stretcher Brantley was on and dropped him. As a result, Brantley alleged he sustained damages, including medical bills and expenses. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City, and Brantley appealed. Finding that the City was not entitled to sovereign immunity under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA) under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Brantley v. City of Horn Lake" on Justia Law

Richard Palermo alleged that he was injured by infected tissue surgically placed into his knee. He sued LifeLink Foundation, Inc., under the Mississippi Products Liability Act (“MPLA”), Mississippi Code Section 11-1-63. The trial court and Court of Appeals both found that Mississippi Code Section 41-41-1, which defined the procurement, processing, storage, distribution, and use of human tissue as a “service,” exempted LifeLink from liability under the MPLA. The Supreme Court clarified the analysis surrounding this issue, found no reversible error, and therefore affirmed the trial court and the Court of Appeals. View "Palermo v. LifeLink Foundation, Inc. d/b/a LifeLink Tissue Bank" on Justia Law

Diane Truddle, as mother and wrongful-death beneficiary of Eric Carmichael, sued Baptist Memorial Hospital-Desoto, Inc., and Dr. Sunil Malhotra after Carmichael committed suicide upon being discharged from Baptist. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Baptist and Dr. Malhotra and entered a final judgment in their favor as a matter of law. Truddle appealed. Finding no error in the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendants, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Truddle v. Baptist Memorial Hospital-Desoto, Inc." on Justia Law

The plaintiff in this automobile-accident lawsuit sued her underinsured-motorist insurance carrier. Even though the UM carrier admitted liability and agreed to pay any damages awarded at trial that exceeded available liability coverage, plaintiff insisted on informing the jury of the insurance company’s status as a defendant. The trial judge refused to allow it. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Heflin v. Merrill" on Justia Law

Following his divorce, Vennit Mathis, individually and as next friend of his two minor children, sued Dr. Charles Brent for tortious interference of a marriage contract stemming from the relationship that Brent developed with Mathis' then-wife, Nicole, shortly after the doctor treated Mrs. Mathis for neck pain. Mr. Mathis also sued on grounds of alienation of affection, and reckless infliction of emotional distress. Brent moved for summary judgment on the children’s claims, but the trial court denied the motion. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. The judge let the parties discuss only standing (of the children) at the hearing. The order denying summary judgment consisted of one sentence, thus, there was no insight into the trial court's rationale on any issues. The Supreme Court granted Brent’s petition for interlocutory appeal. Brent argued that the minor children’s claim that he alienated the affection of their mother failed as a matter of law because the children lacked standing to bring such a claim: only an aggrieved spouse has standing to bring a claim of alienation of affection. This issue was of first impression; in every other case considered by the Mississippi Supreme Court, a husband or wife has brought the claim for alienation of affection. Mathis argued that "some of the earliest recognitions of alienation of affection involve claims having nothing to do with extra-marital affairs," but deal with intrusion into the family unit by an outside party. The Supreme Court was not persuaded: "[g]iven that Mississippi does not view marriage as a judicially enforced contract," the children’s claim for tortious interference with a marriage contract was dismissed. Furthermore, the children failed to produce sufficient evidence to support a claim of intention infliction of emotional distress. The trial court’s denial of Brent’s motion for summary judgment as to all of the minor children’s claims was reversed. View "Brent v. Mathis, II" on Justia Law

The Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of Arch Specialty Insurance Company, finding that Arch's general liability policy did not provide coverage for the claims asserted by the wrongful death beneficiaries of William Gray. The Grays' claimed negligent hiring, negligent training, and failure to implement appropriate triage protocols arose from the performance of or failure to perform medical services, against Arch's insured. The Grays appealed. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Gray v. Arch Specialty Insurance Company" on Justia Law