Gamble v. Dollar General


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2000-CA-01545-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2000-CA-01545-SCT
Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-07-2003
Opinion Author: Easley, J.
Holding: Part I: Affirmed. Part II: Reversed and Rendered.
Additional Case Information: Topic: Personal injury - Expert testimony - Intentional infliction of emotional distress - Jury instruction - Negligent training - Assault - Punitive damages
Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., McRae, P.J., and Graves, J., Concur as to Part I. Pittman, C.J., Smith, P.J., Waller, Cobb and Carlson, JJ., Concur as to Part II.
Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J.
Dissenting Author : Graves, J.
Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Smith, P.J., as to Part I
Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: Waller, Cobb and Carlson, JJ.
Concurs in Result Only: see notes
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY; Motion for Rehearing
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 08-14-2000
Appealed from: Lamar County Circuit Court
Judge: Michael R. Eubanks
Disposition: The jury returned a verdict against the Appellees for actual damages in the amount of $75,000, and, a verdict in favor of Gamble against Dollar General in the amount of $100,000 in punitive damages. The circuit court then entered an order dismissing certain claims of the Appellant.
Case Number: 99-0075
Note: Motion for rehearing filed by appellee is granted.
  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Heather Gamble, a Minor, by and through Her Mother and Adult Next Friend, Rebecca Gamble




 J. ANDREW PHELPS MARK THOMAS FINCH



  
Appellee: Dollar General Corporation, a Tennessee Corporation, and Sheri Thornton WILLIAM E. READY, JR. NEIL A. MORRIS  
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 - Expert testimony - Intentional infliction of emotional distress - Jury instruction - Negligent training - Assault - Punitive damages
Summary of the Facts: The motion for rehearing is granted, and these opinions are substituted for the original opinions. Heather Gamble filed a complaint against Dollar General Corporation and Sherry Thornton, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for assault, negligence, intentional and/or negligent infliction of mental and emotional distress and anguish, wrongful detention and arrest, and outrage and slander. Gamble alleged that Thornton, an employee of Dollar General, followed her from the Dollar General store to the parking area of a Family Dollar store, where she accused Gamble of shoplifting and grabbed Gamble by her underwear. The jury returned a verdict against Thornton and Dollar General for actual damages in the amount of $75,000, and, after additional instructions, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Gamble against Dollar General in the amount of $100,000 in punitive damages. Gamble appeals, and Dollar General cross-appeals.
Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Expert testimony Dollar General presented a motion in limine requesting that the court not allow Gamble to testify that she experienced insomnia as a result of Dollar General and Thornton’s conduct. Dollar General argues that Gamble's testimony that the incident has caused her loss of sleep was not admissible because Gamble was treated for insomnia sometime in 1997, prior to the incident at issue and that insomnia is a medical condition which requires proof by expert testimony. If there is outrageous conduct, no injury is required for the recovery of infliction of emotional distress or mental anguish. The plaintiff does not have to present further proof of injury. The nature of the act itself, rather than the seriousness of the consequences, can justify an award for compensatory damages. The conduct in the present case was confrontational, physical, demeaning, and embarrassing enough such that compensatory damages were appropriately considered by the jury. Gamble did not testify to any stress related injury that had to be confirmed by an expert. Furthermore, a layperson could determine whether the conduct of Dollar General was outrageous enough to cause stress and insomnia. Issue 2: Intentional infliction of emotional distress Dollar General argues that because Gamble continued shopping, went to work, and never sought medical treatment, she could not have met her burden for proving intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, the facts are sufficiently outrageous to present a jury issue as to whether Gamble suffered intentional infliction of emotional distress. Issue 3: Jury instruction Dollar General argues that an instruction which was given improperly fails to distinguish between the standards for proving the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress and the elements of negligent infliction of emotional distress. However, Dollar General offers no legal support for its position, and the instruction sufficiently instructs the jury as to the elements for proving each claim. Issue 4: Negligent training Dollar General argues that the jury should not have been allowed to hear Gamble’s claim of negligent training, because Mississippi law requires the plaintiff to call an expert witness on retail store shoplifting procedures in order to establish that Dollar General’s training was inadequate and negligent. Gamble's claim is better understood as an allegation that Dollar General provided no training. Stated as an issue of no training, the jury could infer Dollar General's negligence without the need of expert testimony on proper or adequate training. The jury could properly find that Dollar General was negligent in failing to provide training to Thornton. Issue 5: Assault Dollar General argues that there was no evidence to warrant a jury instruction on assault. However, Thornton’s act of following Gamble and impermissibly yanking Gamble’s underwear, to see if they were shoplifted, were sufficient facts to warrant a jury’s consideration as to the tort of assault. Issue 6: Punitive damages Dollar General argues it was error for Gamble to receive a judgment for punitive damages. Punitive damages are only awarded in extreme cases. Although Dollar General failed to provide additional training to its employees, it did provide Thornton a manual. Thornton admitted to not following store policy. It is inconceivable that under the facts of this case, Dollar General was assessed punitive damages. These acts were done by Thornton alone, violating the store policy. Therefore, the award of punitive damages is reversed and rendered.


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