Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The City of Jackson appealed a judgment made against the city for damages based on a police officerâs pursuit of a vehicle. The suspectâs vehicle collided with another vehicle owned by Eric and Kristina Law. The Jackson Police Department has a written pursuit policy which stipulates all police officers perform a balancing test when in pursuit of suspects. This means that police officers should weigh the immediate danger posed by their pursuit to that of allowing the suspect to remain at large. The trial court held that the officer acted recklessly when he pursued the suspect causing damage to the vehicle owned by Eric and Kristina Law. The court awarded each of the Laws $250,000. The Supreme Court found that the officer had violated the applicable pursuit policy by failing to weigh the potential harm to the public. The Court affirmed the lower courtâs ruling.

Sixteen former clients (Clients) sued two lawyers (Lawyers) who had represented them in a mass-tort litigation, claiming the lawyers had breached their fiduciary duty by prematurely settling their cases in order to maximize attorney fees. Responding to a motion for summary judgment, the Clients produced a witness who testified that he had worked for the Lawyers and had settled numerous similar cases for much more than the Clients received. The witness also produced a document he prepared that the Lawyers used as a settlement template. The trial judge found the witnessâ testimony and template were inadmissible as hearsay, and that the Clients could not prove they would have won their mass-tort case at trial in order to sue their Lawyers for breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court granted summary judgment against the Clients, and they appealed. The Supreme Court found that the trial court erred by requiring the Clients prove they would have won their mass-tort case at trial. Furthermore, the Court held that the witnessâ testimony should not have been excluded at trial as hearsay. The Court found that the witnessâ testimony was offered to establish facts already in the record: â[w]hile those decisions may have been based on [the witnessâ] opinions at the time, the decision-making process and the resultant [template] wasâ a matter of fact. The Court reversed the decision and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings.