Jordan v. Wilson
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-00969-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-00969-COA2007-CT-00969-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 04-10-2008 | |
* 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: 07-29-2008 Opinion Author: CARLTON, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Assault - Negligence - M.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), (c) - M.R.C.P. 56 - Inconsistent claims - M.R.C.P. 8 - Intent Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): CHANDLER AND BARNES, JJ. Procedural History: Dismissal; Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-16-2007 Appealed from: MONROE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Paul S. Funderburk Disposition: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED; CASE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Case Number: CV-00-101-GM |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | FAYE JORDAN |
JIM WAIDE,
LUTHER C. FISHER |
|
|
| Appellee: | ANN WILSON | P. NELSON SMITH, DEWITT T. HICKS, DAVID B. MCLAURIN | ||
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: | Assault - Negligence - M.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), (c) - M.R.C.P. 56 - Inconsistent claims - M.R.C.P. 8 - Intent |
| Summary of the Facts: | Faye Jordan filed suit against Ann Wilson seeking to recover damages for assault and negligence arising out of an incident where Wilson allegedly pointed a firearm at Jordan. Wilson filed a motion to dismiss, for judgment on the pleadings, and for summary judgment. The trial court granted Wilson’s motion and dismissed Jordan’s case with prejudice. Jordan appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The trial judge essentially treated Wilson’s motion as both a motion under M.R.C.P. 12(b) and/or 12© and a summary judgment motion under M.R.C.P. 56. Because the trial judge’s primary basis for dismissing Jordan’s case was based on Rule 12(b)(6) and/or Rule 12©, the motion will be reviewed as one under Rule 12(b)(6) and/or Rule 12©. To be thorough, the trial judge’s alternative ruling, which was based on Rule 56, will also be reviewed under the standard of review for a summary judgment motion under Rule 56. Jordan argues that the judge erred in dismissing her case because she alleged a nonexistent cause of action for “negligent assault,” because her complaint alleged two separate claims, one for negligence and one for the intentional tort of assault. When a complaint is tested via a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the sufficiency of the complaint is in substantial part determined by reference to M.R.C.P. 8(a) and (e). Rule 8 allows a plaintiff to advance alternative and/or inconsistent claims. A claim alleging an intentional tort and a claim alleging negligence are mutually exclusive, in that, one who is found to have acted negligently cannot at the same time be found to have acted intentionally. It does not follow that one may not be found liable for either an intentional tort or negligence based on the same conduct, assuming of course that there is sufficient evidence to support a jury finding of liability on either theory. In the first sentence of her complaint, Jordan stated: “This is an action to recover actual and punitive damages for assault and negligence.” This statement along with the assertions of fact contained therein were sufficient to provide Wilson with fair notice that Jordan claimed and intended to prove the intentional tort of assault, as well as negligence. Therefore, under Rule 8, Jordan permissibly pleaded a claim of both negligence and assault notwithstanding that the claims are inconsistent. In her complaint, Jordan alleged that Wilson pointed a firearm at her and that she feared for her life. This was sufficient to state a claim for the intentional tort of assault. Taking the allegations in Jordan’s complaint as true, Jordan could prove a set of facts in support of her assault claim which would entitle her to relief. In addition, taking the facts alleged in Jordan’s complaint as true, Jordan could prove a set of facts that would entitle her to relief on her claim of negligence. Jordan would be entitled to relief if the jury were to believe that Wilson rested the gun on the windowsill without the intent required to constitute an assault, Wilson’s conduct breached the standard of care, and Jordan’s injuries were foreseeable. Jordan also argues that the trial judge erred in finding that there was no evidence of intent on Wilson’s part. It is undisputed that Wilson had a gun resting on her windowsill as she pulled beside Jordan. Although the direction in which the gun was pointed is disputed by the parties, there was ample evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Wilson pointed the firearm at Jordan either intending to put Jordan in imminent apprehension of a battery or with substantial certainty that pointing a gun at Jordan would bring about such a result. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting Wilson’s motion to dismiss, for judgment on the pleadings, and for summary judgment. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
