White v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2000-CA-00995-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-16-2004 Opinion Author: Cobb, P.J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wrongful death - Motion for new trial - M.R.C.P. 59 - Ex parte communications - M.R.E. 606(b) - Recusal of judge Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz , J. Dissenting Author : Easley and Graves, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-24-2000 Appealed from: PIKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Keith Starrett Disposition: The jury found for the Appellee. Case Number: 5138-A |
|
| Consolidated: Consolidated with 2001-CA-00166 In Re: Patricia Alexander Killgore and Roland C. Lewis, Jr.; Pike Circuit Court; LC Case #: 5138; Ruling Date: 12/28/2000; Ruling Judge: Keith Starrett | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Billie K. White and Daphne E. White, a Minor, by and through Her Natural Mother and Next Friend, Judy White |
THOMAS W. BROCK
WILLIAM S. GUY
PATRICIA ALEXANDER KILLGORE
PETER K. SMITH |
||
| Appellee: | Yellow Freight System, Inc. and James D. Parish | BARRY STUART ZIRULNIK MARTIN ROSE LEANE CAPPS MEDFORD MICHAEL CHADWICK SMITH JOHN BENTON CLARK |
|
|
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: | Wrongful death - Motion for new trial - M.R.C.P. 59 - Ex parte communications - M.R.E. 606(b) - Recusal of judge |
| Summary of the Facts: | The heirs of Billy White sued Yellow Freight, James Parish and William Hudson, Jr., in a wrongful death action, alleging that a Yellow Freight truck negligently operated by its driver struck and killed Billy White. The case was first tried the case in 1998, and the jury returned a general verdict for the Whites in the sum of $500,000. Yellow Freight filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative, a new trial. The court granted a new trial, finding that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The second trial took place in 2000, and the jury found for Yellow Freight. The Whites appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Motion for new trial The Whites argue that the jury’s verdict should have been allowed to stand, and that the judge should have granted neither a new trial nor a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. M.R.C.P. 59 authorizes the judge to set aside a jury verdict as to any or all parts of the issues tried and to grant a new trial, whenever justice requires. A new trial may be granted in a number of circumstances, such as when the verdict is against the substantial or overwhelming weight of the evidence. In both trials, it was undisputed that White died of injuries he received when he was struck by a motor vehicle on Interstate 55, and that White was standing erect and facing whatever vehicle struck him at the time of first impact. It was also undisputed that the Yellow Freight vehicle operated by Parish struck White’s body at some point in time, and that there was minimal damage to the truck, especially to the fiberglass front grill, fenders, and body of the truck. In order to prevail in a wrongful death action, the plaintiff must establish that the conduct of the defendant proximately caused the injury and death in question. There was no eyewitness testimony, at either trial, that the Yellow Freight truck driven by Parish struck White while he was standing in the road. The accident reconstruction experts for both the Whites and Yellow Freight testified that they would expect there to be visible damage to the front part of Parish’s vehicle if it struck the body of White, especially the fiberglass grill and the plastic coverings. Based on the record, the judge did not abuse his discretion in granting a new trial. Issue 2: Ex parte communications The Whites argue that the judge granted Yellow Freight’s motion for new trial based on his improper ex parte communications with the jury after the trial. While M.R.E. 606(b) generally prohibits the admission of evidence of juror deliberations and their thought processes during the deliberations, there is no case law or rule specifically dealing with the issue of ex parte communications between a judge and jury members after the rendering of a verdict. Here, the judge met with the jurors to thank them for their service, distribute their paychecks, and inquire as to the hospitality of the court personnel. The juror who voluntarily stated that she believed that White was already down when hit by Parish’s truck expressed herself without any prompting from the judge. The judge’s post-trial order granting a new trial describes the lack of evidence supporting the verdict. Therefore, the evidence is clear that the judge did not base his decision to grant Yellow Freight’s motion for new trial on his post-trial ex parte communications with the jury. Issue 3: Recusal of judge The Whites argue that the judge erred in not recusing himself after having post-verdict ex parte communications with the jury. A judge is required to disqualify himself if a reasonable person, knowing all the circumstances, would harbor doubts about his impartiality. Judges routinely hear inadmissible evidence and have to rule based only upon admissible evidence. The fact that the judge in this case reported the ex parte communications and did not reference them in his order granting the motion for new trial is further evidence that the judge maintained his impartiality and limited his decision to the admissible evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
