Cooper v. Missey
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-00080-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-CA-00080-COA ; 2003-CT-00080-SCT ; 2003-CT-00080-SCT ; 2003-CA-00080-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-02-2004 Opinion Author: Myers, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Duty to render aid - Breach of duty - Separate occurrences Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-17-2002 Appealed from: Jackson County Circuit Court Judge: James W. Backstrom Disposition: FINAL JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF ROBERT PRESTON COOPER, III AND AGAINST AARON MISSEY IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,000 Case Number: 99-0371(1) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | ROBERT PRESTON COOPER, III |
JESSICA S. UPSHAW
HARRIS BELL WILLIAMS |
||
| Appellee: | AARON MISSEY | JAMES N. COMPTON |
|
|
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 - Duty to render aid - Breach of duty - Separate occurrences |
| Summary of the Facts: | Robert Cooper, III brought a personal injury action against Aaron Missey. Cooper had attended a party at Missey’s parent’s house. During the course of the party, Missey punched Cooper in the face and another guest stomped on Cooper’s head rendering him unconscious. Missey and others moved Cooper several times while he was unconscious before finally calling for medical assistance. The parties entered into a settlement where Allstate, the insurance carrier for Missey’s family’s homeowner policy, paid Cooper $100,000. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Cooper brought suit to attempt to recover additional benefits under the Allstate policy if Missey was found to be negligent and if each move of Cooper was deemed a separate occurrence under the policy. The parties agreed to waive their right to a jury trial and to submit by briefs and oral arguments the disputed issues between them. The court entered an order denying the motion for judgment in favor of Cooper. Cooper appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Duty to render aid Cooper argues that Missey owed him a duty to obtain medical treatment which he breached on three separate occasions. There is no Mississippi statute that establishes a duty to render aid. Nor does the policy itself impose a duty on the insured to obtain emergency medical treatment for someone seriously injured on the homeowner’s premises. Cooper refers to Section 314A of the Restatement of Torts which notes that in special relationships a duty to aid or protect arises and argues that a special relationship existed between Missey and himself. However, Mississippi has not adopted this section of the Restatement as authority. In addition, the special relationships required to trigger such a duty are not present in the instant case since Missey never assumed the medical care of Cooper. Therefore, the judge was not manifestly wrong in finding no duty on Missey’s part. Issue 2: Breach of duty Cooper argues that the court erred in finding that Cooper had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Missey knew or should have known that Cooper was in need of medical assistance, as is required for the imposition of such a duty if the duty even existed. Guests at the party testified that they believed that Cooper’s unconscious state after the incident was more a need to sleep off his excesses, rather than a need for immediate medical attention. Assuming that Cooper’s injuries were obvious at the time he was placed in his truck, Allstate has already compensated Cooper for one occurrence. Therefore, the judge was not manifestly wrong in finding no breach on Missey’s part. Issue 3: Separate occurrences Cooper argues that the court erred in not interpreting the policy to allow for separate occurrences. A factual issue of whether multiple acts are sufficiently related to constitute one occurrence of loss only arises where the applicable policy language unambiguously states that multiple acts may be so treated. Here, there are no multiple acts. Even if Cooper’s condition was such that Missey knew or should have known that Cooper needed medical assistance, that knowledge and the resulting failure to seek medical assistance continued unbroken until the time that Missey ultimately called for an ambulance. In addition, the settlement agreement requires that Missey must be negligent and that each move constitute a separate occurrence in order for Cooper to recover additional proceeds under the policy. Since the judge was not manifestly wrong in finding no negligent conduct on Missey’s part, a finding of separate occurrences would not in and of itself entitle Cooper to an additional award. The three separate times Cooper was moved constituted only one occurrence under the Allstate policy. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
