Weatherly, et al. v. Welker, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-02595-SCT Linked Case(s): 2003-CA-02595-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-30-2006 Opinion Author: SMITH, CHIEF JUSTICE Holding: REVERSED AND REMANDED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - M.R.E. 408 - Settlement negotiations Judge(s) Concurring: WALLER AND COBB, P.JJ., EASLEY, CARLSON, DICKINSON AND RANDOLPH, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): GRAVES, J. Dissenting Author : DIAZ, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-04-2003 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Tomie Green Disposition: Jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellee & awarded damages Case Number: 251-00-714CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | WALLACE WEATHERLY, M.D., AND
WEATHERLY SPORTS MEDICINE & FAMILY
ORTHOPAEDIC CLINIC, P.C. |
MARK P. CARAWAY
META S. COPELAND |
||
| Appellee: | ADINA WELKER AND FORREST WELKER | KENNETH CHARLES MILLER DEREK L. HALL THANDI WADE |
|
|
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: | Medical malpractice - M.R.E. 408 - Settlement negotiations |
| Summary of the Facts: | Adina Welker fell during a visit to the clinic of Dr. Wallace Weatherly. Welker and her husband filed an action against Dr. Weatherly and Weatherly Sports Medicine and Family Orthopaedics Clinic, P.A. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the Welkers in the amount of $530,000. Weatherly appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Weatherly argues that the trial court erred by informing the jury venire of ongoing settlement negotiations. Although evidence of settlement is not admissible to prove liability or the invalidity of a claim under M.R.E. 408, the rule also does not require exclusion when the evidence is offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution. There are no Mississippi cases directly on point with regard to whether a trial court’s disclosure of on-going settlement negotiations between parties actively involved in a trial to the venire violates Rule 408. However, the disclosure of settlement negotiations in this case clearly falls outside of the permissible purposes set out in Rule 408. The trial court reasonably could have and should have found a more appropriate way of dealing with the delay caused by settlement negotiations without disclosing to the venire that the parties were trying to settle the case, which implies responsibility for the injury. Taking into consideration the importance placed on trial judges and their role in safeguarding impartiality, the trial court in this case abused its discretion by informing the venire of last minute, on-going settlement negotiations taking place on the first day of trial. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
