Stricklin v. Medexpress of Miss., LLC
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-00549-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-14-2007 Opinion Author: CARLTON, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Negligence in maintenance and repair of ambulance - Standard of case - Breach of contract Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Dissenting Author : KING, C.J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-09-2006 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT EMERGYSTAT Case Number: 251-03-1305CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | HUBERT ARNOLD STRICKLIN |
MICHAEL D. SIMMONS
DONNA MARIE MEEHAN |
||
| Appellee: | MEDEXPRESS OF MISSISSIPPI, LLC D/B/A EMERGYSTAT | STEVEN CRAIG PANTER TERESA EARLEY HARVEY |
|
|
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 in maintenance and repair of ambulance - Standard of case - Breach of contract |
| Summary of the Facts: | Hubert Stricklin filed suit against Emergystat, an ambulance service, for alleged injuries arising out of Emergystat’s transport of Stricklin from hospital to hospital for treatment of a heart attack. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Emergystat. Stricklin appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | With regard to his negligence action, Stricklin argues that Emergystat breached the standard of care by failing to dispatch an ambulance with working air conditioning. To create a fact issue for the jury, it was necessary for Stricklin to put forth evidence that Emergystat was negligent in its maintenance and repair of the ambulance and that this negligence caused it to malfunction that day. Voluminous maintenance records showed that Emergystat routinely maintained the vehicle – approximately every 5,000 miles. Additionally, Stricklin offers no evidence or explanation as to how an inoperative air conditioner may have caused the mechanical breakdown. In light of Emergystat’s diligent efforts to ensure the reliability of its vehicle, Stricklin failed to offer sufficient evidence from which reasonable juror could conclude that Emergystat breached its duty of care in the maintenance of its ambulance or that the breakdown was caused by negligence on the part of Emergystat. Stricklin argues that Emergystat breached its duty of care by leaving him alone and failing to utilize a heart monitor during the transport and breakdown. Stricklin provided no evidence that his health condition suffered in any way from the alleged failure to use a heart monitor, i.e., that Emergystat’s alleged inaction proximately resulted in any injury to him. Therefore, the resolution of the factual issue of whether a heart monitor was utilized by Emergystat is not outcome determinative, and thus not material. Stricklin argues that Emergystat breached its duty of care by failing to dispatch the nearest ambulance to complete the transfer. However, there is no evidence in the record that there was another ambulance closer to the scene of the breakdown than the ambulance that Emergystat sent. With regard to his breach of contract action, Stricklin argues that the court erred by holding that Stricklin’s claim for breach of contract failed because there was no written contract between Stricklin and Emergystat. Stricklin argues that a contract of carriage was established when he put himself in the care of Emergystat with the intention of becoming a passenger and was accepted by Emergystat. To determine whether a contract of carriage exists between Emergystat and Sricklin would be an exercise of futility. Although the existence of a contract of carriage between Stricklin and Emergystat may give rise to a heightened duty of care, summary judgment would still be proper even if Emergystat were then held to this duty of care. Stricklin has made an insufficient showing of damages and the trial judge correctly found that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to damages. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
