Gaines v. K-Mart Corp.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2000-CA-00097-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 12-11-2003
Opinion Author: Graves, J.
Holding: AFFIRMED ON DIRECT APPEAL AND CROSSAPPEAL

Additional Case Information: Topic: Personal injury - Premises liability - Weight of evidence - Admission of evidence - M.R.E. 406 - M.R.E. 403 - Additur
Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Smith, P.J., Waller, Cobb, Easley and Carlson, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J.
Dissenting Author : McRae, P.J.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 12-09-1999
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: Tomie Green
Disposition: The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Appellants assessing her damages as $10,000, but found that she was 95% at fault. The jury then reduced the award, and the trial judge granted an additur of $20,491.
Case Number: 251-96822CIV

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Bobbie Gaines




THOMAS JONES CHARLES RAYMOND WARD, JR.



 

Appellee: K-Mart Corporation H. GRAY LAIRD, III JAMES D. HOLLAND  

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 - Premises liability - Weight of evidence - Admission of evidence - M.R.E. 406 - M.R.E. 403 - Additur

Summary of the Facts: Bobbie Gaines was injured when she fell from a stepladder in a K-Mart store while trying to retrieve a displayed item. Gaines brought suit alleging that K-Mart was negligent in placing the ladder where a customer could use it. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Gaines assessing her damages as $10,000, but found that Gaines was 95% at fault and reduced the award to $500. The judge granted an additur of $20,491, based upon an expert’s estimate that Gaines’s present and future medical expenses would total approximately $610,000. K-Mart did not accept the additur, and both parties appeal.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Weight of evidence Gaines argues that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence in that K-Mart's negligence was substantially greater than the 5% assessed by the jury. The owner or operator of business premises owes a duty to an invitee to exercise reasonable care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition and, if the operator is aware of the dangerous condition which is not readily apparent to the invitee, he is under a duty to warn the invitee of such condition. It is undisputed that Gaines failed to ask for assistance from one of K-Mart's employees before climbing the stepladder to retrieve the item from the top shelf. The jury heard the testimony as to the condition of the ladder and saw pictures of the accident scene with the ladder in question lying on the floor beside Gaines. It was reasonable for the jury to have expected that a customer would not attempt to retrieve an item from the top shelf of a department store without the assistance of an employee and to have found that Gaines's own negligence significantly contributed to her injuries, and thereby apportion fault as it did. Issue 2: Admission of evidence Gaines argues that the judge erred in excluding the testimony of a former K-Mart employee which would have established that K-Mart allowed faulty, defective or damaged ladders returned by customers to be placed on the sales floor. Although M.R.E. 406 allows the admission of evidence tending to establish a business’s routine, habit or practice, M.R.E. 403 prohibits the use of any evidence that substantially confuses the issues. Gaines sought to establish that K-Mart routinely left defective ladders on its sales floor. This testimony would have left the jury to speculate about the inferences that the ladder involved in the instant case was defective and that K-Mart knew of the ladder's dangerous condition. These inferences muddy the issues and confuse the jury. Gaines also argues that the court erred in excluding photographs of other ladders on the basis that the actual photographer had not identified the photographs. Although the court should not have excluded the photographs on that basis, the photographs were still inadmissible since such evidence confuses the issues. Issue 3: Additur K-Mart argues that the court's decision to grant an additur to the jury award was erroneous. The party seeking the additur bears the burden of proving his injuries, loss of income, and other damages. Although it would have been helpful in this case if the judge had made an explicit finding that the damages awarded were against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, it is reasonable to conclude from the court’s order that the court found that the damage award by the jury was inadequate because it was against the overwhelming weight of credible evidence. Gaines's medical expenses at the point of trial had already approximated $83,000. Even if the jury believed that Gaines was malingering as to the extent of her back pain, the fact remains that she has to wear a catheter for the rest of her life. Therefore, the additur was an appropriate amount in keeping with the proportion of the allocated fault.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court