City of Natchez v. Jackson
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-00043-COA | |
| Oral Argument: | 05-31-2006 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-19-2006 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Tort Claims Act - Dangerous condition - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 401 - M.R.E. 103(a)(1) - Medical records - Comparative fault - Damage award Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, IRVING, CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-09-2004 Appealed from: Adams County Circuit Court Judge: Lillie Blackmon Sanders Disposition: JUDGMENT ENTERED IN FAVOR OF IRMA AND MELVIN JACKSON AGAINST CITY OF NATCHEZ. Case Number: 03-KV-0176-S |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | RAYMOND SMITH |
L. CLARK HICKS, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | PETAL SCHOOL DISTRICT | JAMES A. KEITH |
|
|
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 - Tort Claims Act - Dangerous condition - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 401 - M.R.E. 103(a)(1) - Medical records - Comparative fault - Damage award |
| Summary of the Facts: | Irma and Melvin Jackson filed suit against the City of Natchez for Irma’s personal injuries and Melvin’s loss of consortium after Irma fell when her heel got caught in a two-inch wide, six-inch deep hole in the sidewalk. The circuit court entered judgment for the Jacksons. The city appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Dangerous condition The city argues that the judge erred in finding a dangerous condition, because holes in sidewalks are not dangerous conditions for which municipalities may be held liable. To state a cause of action under the dangerous condition exemption of the Tort Claims Act, a plaintiff must show a dangerous condition, on the government entity’s property, which the government entity caused, or of which it had notice and time to protect or warn against, and, in the case of a failure to warn, the condition was not open and obvious. The undisputed evidence here was that the hole was caused by the affirmative act of the City of Natchez. The city placed the coal grate in the middle of the sidewalk on Main Street. The steel grate was full of holes. Even though the city tried to cover the holes up, it left at least one hole exposed. Thus, it was a question for the trier of fact as to whether the city was negligent. Not only did the city affirmatively cause the defect, there was evidence, including an admission, that this was a dangerous, unreasonable trip hazard. Issue 2: Expert testimony The city argues that the judge should not have allowed a witness to render an expert opinion on whether the grate was negligently repaired or dangerous. One of the issues to be tried was whether or not the city had improperly repaired the coal grate/sidewalk on numerous occasions before the fall. The expert testified that the city’s active repair and maintenance of the grate were causing the holes to keep reappearing. His testimony tends to make the fact that the city negligently repaired and maintained the grate and sidewalk in question more probable than it would be without this evidence. Therefore, his testimony was relevant under M.R.E. 401 and properly admitted. The city also argues that the expert’s opinion that there was a dangerous condition should have been excluded, because the opinion does not require special skill and if it does, the expert does not have that special skill. However, the city did not object to this opinion at trial. M.R.E. 103(a)(1) provides that error may not be predicated upon a ruling admitting evidence unless there is a timely objection. The city also argues that one of its witnesses was qualified to testify as to whether the hole was dangerous and as to whether the city caused the hole based on his experience as a municipal risk manager. The witness’s proffered testimony was for three opinions: the hole was not dangerous, it was open and obvious, and it was not caused by the city. On appeal, the city does not argue that the witness was qualified to testify as to what is open and obvious. As for his opinion on causation, this was inadmissible. His expert designation did not list this as part of his proffered testimony. As for the remaining opinion on whether the hole was dangerous, the judge did not abuse her discretion in determining that the witness was not qualified to opine whether or not the hole was dangerous. He did not indicate a peculiar knowledge above that of the average, randomly selected adult that would give him a better understanding of whether or not this hole was dangerous. Issue 3: Medical records The city argues that the trial court should not have admitted Irma’s medical records into evidence, because there was no sponsoring witness to authenticate the documents. Where a party stipulates to the admissibility of medical records, that party cannot later complain about their introduction and consequential prejudicial effect. There is no question that the city had stipulated to the records that were listed in the pretrial order. The only objection is that the records introduced were not marked, and the city could not tell whether or not these were the same records stipulated. The city was given an opportunity to review the records to make specific objections in case the records were not what they had stipulated. After doing so, the city was unable to say if any of the records had not been previously produced. Even if there was error, there is no resulting prejudice. The testimony of Irma’s doctor corroborated the dates and types of injuries Irma was experiencing. Issue 4: Comparative fault The city argues that the trial court should have assessed comparative fault to Irma because the hole was open and obvious. There was sufficient evidence to support a finding that the hole was not open and obvious. Issue 5: Damage award The City argues that Irma’s $219,183.67 damage award is unsupported by the evidence, because Irma had nothing but soft tissue injuries which did not even require surgery. The amount of the physical injury, mental and physical pain, present and future, temporary and permanent disability, medical expenses, loss of wages and wage-earning capacity, sex, age and health of the injured plaintiff, are all variables to be considered by the fact-finder in determining the amount of damages to be awarded. The judge found that $19,183.67 of the award was for past medical expenses. This was supported by evidence at trial that Irma reasonably and necessarily sustained $19,183.67 in past medical bills due to this accident. Irma, her husband, and her doctor testified to her other damages as well. Because of the fall, she has sciatica radiating from her back to her left leg. Her left leg goes suddenly numb and causes her to fall. She also injured her elbow and shoulder and left ankle in the fall. She is not a candidate for surgery because of her preexisting heart condition. She will continue to live with the pain. She no longer can cook, clean, or bathe herself. On this record, the award of damages was not so unreasonable as to shock the conscience of the court. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
