McIntosh v. Victoria Corp.
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-01486-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CA-01486-COA ; 2002-CT-01486-SCT ; 2002-CA-01486-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-06-2004 Opinion Author: MYERS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Negligence - Filing of discovery documents - M.R.C.P. 5(d) - Sanctions - M.R.C.P. 11 Judge(s) Concurring: McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE, IRVING, CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-12-2002 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court Judge: Robert Bailey Disposition: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED, SANCTIONS OF $250 IMPOSED Case Number: 99-CV-111(B) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | BOBBIE MCINTOSH |
LAUREL G. WEIR |
||
| Appellee: | VICTORIA CORPORATION D/B/A THE NAIL SHOP | ERIC FOSTER HATTEN |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Personal injury - Negligence - Filing of discovery documents - M.R.C.P. 5(d) - Sanctions - M.R.C.P. 11 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Bobbie McIntosh filed a negligence lawsuit against Victoria Corporation to recover for injuries she allegedly sustained after developing a fungus on her fingernails. Victoria Corporation filed a motion for summary judgment which the court granted. McIntosh appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Negligence McIntosh argues she made out a prima facie case of negligence and should have been afforded a jury trial. To survive summary judgment, McIntosh needed first to establish the applicable standard or duty of care. Victoria Corporation’s duty to McIntosh was to use reasonable care in the application of the artificial nails in such a way not to expose McIntosh to injury through any means known to Victoria Corporation or by which Victoria Corporation, in the exercise of reasonable care should have known. McIntosh bore the responsibility to offer proof on this issue and on the breach of the duty. Although McIntosh presented the court with affidavits from herself and an artificial nail applicator, both affidavits made mere conclusory statements that Victoria Corporation was negligent. In addition, McIntosh failed to offer proof of causation by linking the alleged negligence of Victoria Corporation to her injury. In her own deposition, McIntosh states that her treating physician never told her the cause of her medical condition. Therefore, McIntosh failed to sustain her burden of proof by showing that genuine issues of material fact existed. Issue 2: Filing of discovery documents McIntosh argues that the court erred by holding that discovery documents such as requests for admission and answers to interrogatories need not be filed. M.R.C.P. 5(d) provides that discovery papers need not be filed until used with respect to any proceeding. Therefore, it was adequate for Victoria Corporation to file a notice of service of discovery with the court. Issue 3: Sanctions The judge found McIntosh’s motion on the filing of the discovery documents to be frivolous and ordered McIntosh to pay Victoria Corporation $250. McIntosh argues this was error. A motion or pleading is considered frivolous under M.R.C.P. 11 when the pleader or movant has no chance of success. The judge was correct in holding that Victoria Corporation was not obligated to file all discovery documents with the court pursuant to M.R.C.P. 5(d). As such, from the pleadings it was clear that the basis of McIntosh’s motion was frivolous because it had no chance of success. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
