Byrd v. Bowie
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-01999-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-01999-COA |
|
| Oral Argument: | 01-24-2008 | |
* 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: 06-17-2008 Opinion Author: MYERS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Legal malpractice - Admissions - M.R.C.P. 36(a) - Proximate causation - M.R.C.P. 56© Judge(s) Concurring: GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): KING, C.J. Dissenting Author : IRVING, J., with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : LEE, P.J. AND CHANDLER, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - LEGAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-13-2006 Appealed from: RANKIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Samac Richardson Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED TO THE APPELLEES Case Number: 2004-84-R |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | ISAAC K. BYRD, JR., KATRINA M. GIBBS AND BYRD, GIBBS & MARTIN F/K/A BYRD & ASSOCIATES, PLLC |
SUZANNE KEYS |
||
| Appellee: | WILLIE BOWIE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND CHARLES BROWN, INDIVIDUALLY, BEING THE SOLE WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF LOIS BROWN, DECEASED | EDDIE JACOB ABDEEN | ||
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: | Legal malpractice - Admissions - M.R.C.P. 36(a) - Proximate causation - M.R.C.P. 56© |
| Summary of the Facts: | Byrd & Associates, PLLC, filed a medical malpractice/wrongful death case on behalf of Willie Bowie and Charles Brown following the death of their mother, Lois Brown. The supreme court upheld the grant of summary judgment after Byrd & Associates failed to timely designate a medical expert, which ultimately caused the demise of the underlying medical malpractice case. Following the supreme court’s affirmance of the dismissal of the medical malpractice case, a legal malpractice case ensued against Isaac K. Byrd, Jr., Katrina M. Gibbs, and Byrd, Gibbs & Martin f/k/a Byrd & Associates, PLLC. Byrd failed to timely answer requests for admission in the legal malpractice case against the firm and the individual members of the firm, Byrd and Gibbs. As a result of Byrd’s failure to timely answer, two requests for admission propounded by Bowie and Brown which stated, “The damages of the Brown Parties in the Brown Death Action were $2,000,000.00” and “The negligence of Byrd and Gibbs in the Brown Death Action resulted in the Brown parties sustaining damages in the amount of $2,000,000.00” were deemed admitted. The trial court denied Byrd’s motion to withdraw the admissions. The trial court then found that there were no genuine issues of material fact left to be discerned by a jury and granted summary judgment. The supreme court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Byrd’s motion to withdraw the deemed admitted requests for admission and the grant of summary judgment. The trial court then entered final summary judgment in favor of Bowie and Brown. Byrd, Gibbs, and Byrd & Associates were held to be jointly and severally liable for actual damages in the amount of $2,000,000. Byrd appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | To recover for legal malpractice, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of evidence the existence of a lawyer-client relationship; negligence on the part of the lawyer in handling his client’s affairs entrusted to him; and proximate cause of the injury. As to the third factor, proximate cause, the plaintiff must show that, but for his attorney’s negligence, he would have been successful in the prosecution or defense of the underlying action. In this case, the dispute is whether proximate cause of the legal injury was duly established by the deemed admitted requests for admission. The element of proximate cause was established by Byrd’s failure to answer or deny the requests for admission. M.R.C.P. 36(a) is clear and unambiguous in stating that requests for admission propounded, which remain unanswered, are deemed admitted. Any matter conclusively established is treated as a judicial admission, and thus, both the court and the parties are bound by the admissions. It is through this operation that a court may base a grant of summary judgment upon an admission, if the court is satisfied that there are no outstanding genuine issues of material fact in the case under M.R.C.P. 56©. The plain language of Rule 36 states that it is applicable to “any matter.” Rule 36 does not differentiate between admissions of one element of proof from another element of proof. Therefore, the admission can be used as a basis for granting summary judgment. Thus, Bowie met his required element of proof of proximate cause in the legal malpractice case. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
