Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

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

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

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

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 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

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

James A. Burley filed a wrongful-death action on June 7, 2004, for the deaths of his daughter and grandchildren resulting from a vehicular accident between his daughter and an employee of Yazoo Valley Electric Power Association (collectively "YVEPA"). During the course of discovery, YVEPA attempted to determine whether Burley would support his theory of liability with expert testimony. Following two motions to compel for Rule 26(b)(4)1 disclosures, Burley's withdrawal of his liability expert, the close of discovery, and four trial settings, Burley supplemented his interrogatory response with a new liability expert on October 7, 2010. YVEPA then moved to strike Burley's designation as untimely and substantively insufficient. The trial court allowed the designation and moved the trial to its fifth setting. Aggrieved by the trial court's order, YVEPA filed an interlocutory appeal. Finding the trial court abused its discretion, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a trial without the plaintiffs' expert testimony on liability. View "Douglas v. Burley" on Justia Law

After Robert Allcock died at a hospital, his mother sued the hospital, the treating doctor, and the doctor's clinic. Allcock failed to designate an expert, and the trial court denied her motion to amend the pretrial order. Still, a jury found for Allcock, but the trial court granted the defendants' motion for a new trial because of a faulty jury instruction. Before the second trial, Allcock again moved to amend the pretrial order. The trial court again denied her motion, and the jury found for the defendants. Because the jury instruction stated an incorrect rule of law; and because Allcock was on sufficient notice of the defendants' expert testimony, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's rulings. View "Allcock v. Bannister" on Justia Law

In this wrongful death action filed by the decedent's niece, the defendants moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the niece did not have standing to file the complaint. At the same time, the decedent's brother's estate filed a motion to substitute as the real party in interest. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and granted the substitution. The case came before the Supreme Court on interlocutory appeal. Finding the niece was an "interested party" as an heir-at-law of the decedent, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Jaquith Nursing Home v. Yarbrough" on Justia Law

After the estate of a former resident sued a nursing home for negligent care, the primary insurance carrier hired lawyers to defend the suit. Because the lawyers failed to timely designate an expert witness, the settlement value of the case greatly increased, causing the nursing home's primary carrier to pay its policy limits, and its excess insurance carrier to step in, defend the nursing home, and ultimately settle the suit. The excess carrier sued the law firm for professional negligence, both directly and under a theory of equitable subrogation. The trial court, finding the excess carrier and the lawyers had no direct attorney-client relationship, granted the law firm's motion to dismiss. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that under the facts of this case, the doctrine of equitable subrogation applied, and the excess carrier could, to the extent of its losses, pursue a claim against the lawyers to the same extent as the insured. Furthermore, the Court held that the excess carrier failed to allege a sufficient factual basis for a direct claim of professional negligence against the law firm. View "Great American E&S Ins. Co. v. Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A." on Justia Law