Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

An employee of an industrial-construction company purchased a truck from his employer through paycheck deductions while residing at a rehabilitation center. The employee was terminated for suspected theft and, upon his firing, received a notarized title to the truck and his final paycheck, which completed the purchase. About a month later, while still driving the truck—which remained titled, licensed, and insured in the company’s name—he was involved in an accident that resulted in the death of another motorist. The deceased’s representative brought a wrongful death suit against both the former employee and the company, alleging the company was liable under theories of negligent entrustment and respondeat superior.The Circuit Court of Claiborne County granted summary judgment to the company on the respondeat superior claim, finding no employment relationship at the time of the accident. However, the court denied summary judgment on the negligent entrustment claim, finding issues of material fact regarding whether the company had control over the truck, whether title had properly transferred, and whether the company should have known about the employee’s alleged substance abuse.The Supreme Court of Mississippi granted interlocutory appeal and reviewed the denial of summary judgment on the negligent entrustment claim. The court held that for negligent entrustment, a plaintiff must show the supplier had control of the vehicle, knew or should have known of an unreasonable risk, and that this risk directly caused the harm. The court found insufficient evidence that the company knew or should have known of the employee’s substance abuse, that the company retained control over the truck after sale, or that substance abuse caused the accident. The Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the circuit court’s decision and remanded with instructions to grant summary judgment for the company on negligent entrustment. View "Rig Masters, Inc. v. Colenberg" on Justia Law

An employee was injured at his workplace by a forklift operated by someone he believed worked for his employer, but later learned was employed by a staffing agency. Shortly after the accident, he filed a workers’ compensation claim and entered Chapter 13 bankruptcy, disclosing only the workers’ compensation claim and not any potential third-party claim related to the injury. The bankruptcy case was eventually dismissed without discharge. Over a year after the dismissal, the injured employee initiated a personal injury lawsuit against the staffing agency and the forklift operator in state court.The Circuit Court of DeSoto County granted summary judgment to the staffing agency, finding that the plaintiff was judicially estopped from pursuing the personal injury claim because he failed to disclose it during bankruptcy proceedings. The court found all elements of judicial estoppel satisfied, including the court’s acceptance of the plaintiff’s prior position. The Mississippi Court of Appeals reversed this decision, relying on federal precedent from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, specifically Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Oparaji (In re Oparaji), which holds that dismissal of a bankruptcy case without discharge revokes the bankruptcy court’s acceptance of any inconsistent position.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case on certiorari. The Court held that the Court of Appeals correctly applied the law and followed Fifth Circuit precedent. The Supreme Court determined that dismissal without discharge returns the parties to their pre-bankruptcy positions, revoking any judicial acceptance of the plaintiff’s representations. Therefore, the acceptance element of judicial estoppel was not met, and the plaintiff is not barred from pursuing his personal injury claim. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ judgment, reversed the Circuit Court’s summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Strong v. Acara Solutions, Inc." on Justia Law

Michael Pryor contracted with a transportation company to deliver cargo in July 2019. After the shipment was rejected by the receiver in Pennsylvania, Pryor returned it to Mississippi at the company’s request. Initially, Pryor was told he would be compensated for the return, but later the company refused to pay. When Pryor asserted a carrier lien on the cargo, the company reported him to local police for theft, leading to criminal charges for felony embezzlement. The charges were eventually “retired to file” in August 2021 and expunged in August 2022. Pryor alleged that the company’s actions caused him emotional distress, humiliation, and economic loss, including heart palpitations diagnosed in November 2021.Pryor first filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi in June 2023, seeking damages for malicious prosecution and emotional distress. The federal court dismissed his case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. In July 2024, Pryor refiled his claims in the Circuit Court of Pontotoc County. The company moved for summary judgment, arguing that the statute of limitations barred both claims. The Circuit Court granted summary judgment, finding Pryor’s claims untimely.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the Circuit Court’s decision de novo. It held that the three-year statute of limitations for emotional distress claims began running when Pryor knew of his injuries, which was well before the doctor’s appointment he cited. The one-year statute of limitations for malicious prosecution began when the criminal charges were retired to file, not when they were expunged. As both claims were filed after the relevant limitations periods had expired, the Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the company. View "Pryor v. J. B. Hunt Transport, Inc." on Justia Law

Monica Sparrow accompanied her daughter to a hospital appointment during the COVID-19 pandemic, when special entry and exit procedures were in place. After her daughter’s appointment, Sparrow was instructed by a nurse to exit the hospital through an employee parking garage to retrieve her car. While leaving through this route, which she was unfamiliar with, Sparrow slipped on a wet, partially concealed, and allegedly slick drainage grate that shifted under her weight. Sparrow sustained a serious knee injury requiring surgery. She claimed that the hospital required her to use an unreasonably dangerous route and failed to warn her of its dangers.The case was first heard in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court. Rush Health Systems, the hospital operator, moved for summary judgment, arguing that the drainage grate was an obvious, non-dangerous condition and that Sparrow was a licensee to whom limited duties were owed. The hospital contended that the grate's presence and condition were not unreasonably dangerous and that Sparrow was at fault for not watching where she was walking. Sparrow presented evidence, including her own and expert testimony, suggesting the grate was slick, poorly lit, shifted under weight, and that she was directed by hospital staff to use that exit. The trial court denied summary judgment, finding that genuine factual disputes remained as to whether the condition was dangerous and whether Sparrow was an invitee or licensee.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the denial of summary judgment de novo. The Court held that Sparrow had presented sufficient evidence to create genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the drainage grate constituted a dangerous condition and her status as an invitee or licensee at the time of her fall. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Rush Health Systems, Inc. v. Sparrow" on Justia Law

After Paula Denison was declared dead at a hospital in Meridian, Mississippi, her family consented to organ donation. She was transferred to a transplant facility, where it was later discovered that she was actually alive. Denison was then returned to the original hospital, where her condition deteriorated and she was pronounced dead the following day. Denison’s estate, through her daughter Brooke Denison as administratrix, and Brooke individually, brought separate lawsuits against the Mississippi Organ Recovery Agency, Dr. Shirley Schlessinger, and Dr. Dustin Shea Allen, among others, alleging claims such as negligence and infliction of emotional distress.In the Lauderdale County Circuit Court, the defendants moved to dismiss both complaints. In the estate’s case, the court granted dismissal based on the immunity provisions of the Revised Mississippi Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, finding the defendants acted in good faith and in reliance on the family’s authorization. In Brooke’s individual case, the court granted dismissal because her complaint did not allege that she was present or witnessed any negligent acts, thus failing to establish bystander liability. Brooke and the estate appealed these decisions.The Supreme Court of Mississippi consolidated the appeals. The Court held that the trial court erred by considering material outside the pleadings in the estate’s case without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, and thus reversed and remanded that case for further proceedings. However, the Court found that Brooke’s individual allegations failed to meet the requirements for bystander liability under Mississippi law and affirmed the dismissal of her claims. The Court expressly declined to decide whether immunity under the Anatomical Gift Act applied, noting the need for further factual development. View "Denison v. Mississippi Organ Recovery Agency, Inc." on Justia Law

A woman with a complex medical history, including autoimmune hepatitis and cirrhosis, was admitted to a regional medical center with symptoms of weakness, nausea, and vomiting. After consultation and diagnostic imaging suggested gallstones and cholecystitis, a general surgeon evaluated her and determined she was not a surgical candidate due to end-stage liver disease. She was treated non-surgically, showed some improvement, and was discharged. Two days later, she was admitted to another hospital with sepsis and subsequently died from cardiopulmonary arrest due to urosepsis.Her daughter, on behalf of her wrongful-death beneficiaries, filed a medical malpractice suit against, among others, the general surgeon. The plaintiff sought to introduce a board-certified interventional radiologist as her medical expert, whose testimony suggested that the surgeon failed to meet the standard of care by not pursuing further diagnostic testing or recommending non-surgical interventions. The Washington County Circuit Court struck this expert’s testimony, holding that the radiologist was not qualified to testify about the standard of care for a general surgeon, and granted summary judgment for the surgeon.The Mississippi Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the circuit court abused its discretion in excluding the expert. Upon further review, the Supreme Court of Mississippi found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 702 in excluding the expert’s testimony, as the expert did not demonstrate sufficient familiarity with the field of general surgery or with the relevant procedures. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, reinstated, and affirmed the judgment of the circuit court, thereby upholding the exclusion of the expert testimony and the grant of summary judgment. View "Lee v. Doolittle" on Justia Law

A woman suffered serious injuries when she struck a large pothole while riding her motorcycle on a city street in Jackson, Mississippi. Her view of the pothole was blocked by a truck in front of her, and the accident resulted in a severely broken ankle requiring surgery and extensive recovery. Prior to the incident, she owned a caregiving business but was unable to resume her work due to her injuries, leading to significant financial hardship. The City of Jackson had received notice of the dangerous pothole eight days before the accident, classified it as a high priority, but did not repair it or place any warnings until months later.The case was tried in the Hinds County Circuit Court. The court denied the City’s motion for summary judgment, granted the plaintiff’s partial summary judgment on liability, and after a bench trial on damages, awarded her both economic and noneconomic damages. The City appealed, arguing that it was immune from liability under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act based on discretionary-function immunity and challenged the interpretation of statutory duties as well as the denial of summary judgment.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case. It held that while the City’s decisions about general street maintenance may involve policy discretion, its failure to warn about or timely repair a known dangerous pothole after receiving actual notice did not qualify for discretionary-function immunity under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act. The Court found that such failures were “simple acts of negligence” rather than protected policy decisions. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the judgment of the Hinds County Circuit Court, holding that the City was not immune from liability and upholding the award of damages to the plaintiff. View "City of Jackson, Mississippi v. Lawson" on Justia Law

Mitchell Glenn Revette sought medical care from Dr. Andrew Mallette at The Surgical Clinic Associates, P.A. for abdominal pain and underwent surgery for diverticulitis in June 2021. He later returned for a follow-up surgery in January 2022, after which he died due to complications related to respiratory depression. His wife, Nitkia Revette, brought a wrongful death and medical negligence lawsuit on behalf of his estate, alleging that negligent anesthesia and pain management led to his death.The defendants, Dr. Mallette and the Clinic, moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement included in an intake packet mailed to Mitchell. The agreement was signed "Mitchell Revette," but during a hearing in the Hinds County Circuit Court, Nitkia testified that she signed her husband’s name without his knowledge or presence, and she stated she had no authority to sign for him. The Clinic’s staff testified that patients were required to sign such agreements personally. The circuit court found that Mitchell did not sign the arbitration agreement and that Nitkia lacked authority to bind him, thus ruling the agreement unenforceable and denying the motion to compel arbitration.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the circuit court’s findings, applying a deferential standard to factual determinations and de novo review to the denial of arbitration. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s decision, holding that substantial evidence supported the findings that Nitkia lacked both actual and apparent authority to sign for Mitchell and that there was no basis for binding the estate via direct-benefits estoppel. The case was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. View "Mallette v. Revette" on Justia Law

James Secrist, after recovering from COVID-19, began experiencing significant neurological symptoms, including leg weakness and inability to urinate. He was evaluated by various healthcare professionals at Rush Medical Foundation and Cardiovascular Institute of the South between March and June 2021. Ultimately, he was diagnosed with transverse myelitis attributed to COVID-19. James and his wife Dawn filed a medical malpractice suit against the involved healthcare providers, alleging negligence in failing to recognize and urgently address his worsening neurological condition.The case was brought in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court. The defendants moved to dismiss, asserting immunity under Mississippi Code Section 11-71-7, which provides legal immunity to healthcare professionals and facilities for acts or omissions related to healthcare services performed during the COVID-19 state of emergency. The circuit court found that the alleged negligent acts occurred during the COVID-19 state of emergency, that James’s condition was caused by COVID-19, and that the defendants’ actions were covered by the statutory immunity. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the statutory language and the facts alleged in the complaint de novo. The Supreme Court determined that Section 11-71-7 immunity applied because James’s injuries resulted from treatment for a condition caused by COVID-19 during the COVID-19 state of emergency. The court rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that the statute should be construed more narrowly to exclude these facts, and also found extrajurisdictional cases cited by plaintiffs to be distinguishable. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the Lauderdale County Circuit Court’s dismissal, holding that the defendants are immune from liability under Section 11-71-7. View "Secrist v. Rush Medical Foundation" on Justia Law

The case involves a personal injury claim arising from an automobile accident in which the plaintiff was rear-ended by the defendant while merging onto a roadway. Both parties testified that the collision caused minimal damage, and the plaintiff received brief medical attention before being released from care. The plaintiff had a prior history of back surgery but denied recent issues before the incident. The defendant admitted liability for the accident but contested whether his negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's alleged injuries.The Desoto County Circuit Court presided over the trial. Prior to trial, the court granted in part the defendant’s motion to exclude “reptile theory” and “golden rule” arguments, preventing the plaintiff from making references at trial to the defendant’s personal sense of safety or knowledge of traffic rules in a way intended to evoke juror emotion. At trial, the court sustained objections to several questions by the plaintiff’s counsel regarding the defendant’s understanding of traffic rules and safety responsibilities. The jury was instructed that the defendant was negligent but that the plaintiff had to prove his negligence proximately caused her injuries. The jury returned a unanimous verdict for the defendant, finding the plaintiff failed to establish proximate cause. The plaintiff appealed, but did not file a motion for a new trial.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case. It held that because the plaintiff did not file a motion for a new trial, appellate review of whether the jury’s verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence was barred. The court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the plaintiff’s “reptile theory” questioning, as such arguments were inadmissible under Mississippi Rules of Evidence 401 to 403. The judgment of the circuit court was affirmed. View "Greer v. Key" on Justia Law