Dedeaux v. Pellerin Laundry, Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2003-CT-02408-SCT Linked Case(s): 2003-CA-02408-COA ; 2003-CT-02408-SCT ; 2003-CA-02408-COA |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-18-2007 Opinion Author: CARLSON, J. Holding: THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Additur/remittitur - Section 11-1-55 Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER AND COBB , P.JJ., DIAZ, EASLEY, GRAVES, DICKINSON AND RANDOLPH, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY Writ of Certiorari: Yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-30-2003 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Robert H. Walker Disposition: Jury returned a verdict for Marilyn but not Eugene. The jury awarded Marilyn damages. Appellants filed a Motion for a new trial & Additur, which was denied by the court. Case Number: A2401-99-00021 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | MARILYN C. DEDEAUX AND EUGENE
DEDEAUX |
ROBERT H. TYLER |
||
| Appellee: | PELLERIN LAUNDRY, INC. | JOHN ROGER MILLER |
|
|
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 - Additur/remittitur - Section 11-1-55 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Marilyn and Eugene Dedeaux filed a claim against Pellerin Laundry, Inc., alleging that they sustained multiple damages as a result of an automobile accident between a vehicle driven by Marilyn and a vehicle owned by Pellerin. The jury returned a verdict in Marilyn’s favor and awarded her damages; however, it awarded zero damages to Eugene. The Dedeauxes moved for a new trial on the issue of damages, or in the alternative, for an additur. The trial court denied the motion for a new trial, but granted Marilyn an additur of $20,000 and Eugene an additur of $10,000. After a reduction to reflect Marilyn’s percentage of fault, Marilyn received a total recovery of $31,011.36 , and Eugene received a recovery of $5,300. The Dedeauxes appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial on the issue of damages only. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Court of Appeals determined that while the record revealed that the trial judge intended to grant a new trial on damages if Pellerin chose not to accept the court-ordered additur, the record was silent as to whether Pellerin had taken affirmative action to either accept or reject the additur; therefore, the Court of Appeals determined that a new trial as to damages was mandated pursuant to statute and case law. The history of the issue of additur/remittitur shows that the Supreme Court has been less than consistent. Today, the Court overrules Odom v. Roberts, 606 So.2d 114 (Miss. 1992), Altom v. Wood, 298 So.2d 700 (Miss. 1974), and all other cases which might be in conflict with today’s decision, and reinstates and affirms the Court’s holding in Odom v. Parker, 547 So.2d 1155 (Miss. 1989). The procedure to be hereafter followed by the trial bench and bar when confronted with the post-trial issues of additurs and remittiturs will be as follows: any party aggrieved by the amount of damages awarded pursuant to a jury verdict may file a motion for an additur or remittitur pursuant to section 11-1-55; if the trial judge grants a motion for an additur or remittitur, such grant of an additur or remittitur shall take effect only if accepted by all the parties; if all the parties do not agree to the additur or the remittitur, then each party shall have the right to either demand a new trial on damages, or appeal the order asserting an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge; if a trial judge determines that the grant of an additur or remittitur is required, then in arriving at the appropriate amount of the additur or remittitur, the trial judge should not be bound by the restrictions which have heretofore been placed on trial judges by having to consider the amount which should be added or subtracted from the jury’s verdict to make it legal and no more; this rule does not impinge upon a party’s right to appeal the jury verdict and trial court judgment on the issue of liability. Although the record in this case clearly reveals that the trial court envisioned that there would be a new trial as to damages only, in the event that Pellerin did not accept the additur, the final judgment did not reflect that the denial of the Dedeauxes’ motion for a new trial as to damages was conditioned on Pellerin’s acceptance of the additur. However, in the end, this omission in the final judgment is of no moment. The trial judge dutifully followed the then-existing case law on additurs by offering only to Pellerin the option of whether to accept the additur or demand a new trial on damages. The Dedeauxes likewise were entitled to have the same option of either accepting the additur or demanding a new trial as to damages. Had this option been offered to all the parties and all parties agreed to the additur, the case would have ended. In their post-trial motion, the Dedeauxes clearly requested a new trial as to damages. Because the Dedeauxes were procedurally barred from protesting the legal sufficiency of the additur and instead demanding a new trial, this issue has merit. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
