Dupree v. Plantation Pointe, L.P.
| Docket Number: | 2002-CT-00556-SCT Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-00556-SCT ; 2002-CT-00556-SCT ; 2002-CT-00556-SCT ; 2002-CT-00556-SCT ; 2002-CT-00556-SCT ; 2002-CA-00556-COA ; 2002-CA-00556-COA |
|
| Supreme Court: |
Opinion Date: 12-09-2004 Opinion Author: Randolph, J. Holding: Affirmed in Part; Reversed in Part |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Negligence - Sufficiency of evidence - Peremptory instruction - M.R.C.P. 50 - Mental damages Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson and Dickinson, JJ., Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz Procedural History: Trial on Merits & Directed Verdict Nature of the Case: Sexual Assault in Nursing Home |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-12-2002 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court Judge: Larry Eugene Roberts Disposition: A jury verdict was returned in favor of Windsor Place on the remaining claims, and the trial court entered judgment for Windsor Place. |
|
| Note: | THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART; THE JUDGMENT OF THE LAUDERDALE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS AFFIRMED | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | SHELIA DUPREE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS
CONSERVATOR OF THE PERSON AND ESTATE
OF ANNIE SANDERS |
TYLVESTER OTIS GOSS
CONSTANCE SLAUGHTER HARVEY |
||
| Appellee: | PLANTATION POINTE, L.P. d/b/a THE WINDSOR PLACE | JAMES P. STREETMAN, III BRIAN DOUGLAS MAYO WADE G. MANOR |
|
|
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: | Negligence - Sufficiency of evidence - Peremptory instruction - M.R.C.P. 50 - Mental damages |
| Summary of the Facts: | Shelia Dupree sued Plantation Pointe, L.P. d/b/a The Windsor Place, individually and on the behalf of her mother, Annie Sanders, after Sanders was sexually assaulted at Windsor Place nursing home. The court granted a directed verdict on Dupree’s individual claim for mental and emotional damages. A jury verdict was returned in favor of Windsor Place on the remaining claims. Dupree appealed, and Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Dupree’s claim for mental and emotional damages. However, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Dupree’s motion for a new trial on the remaining issues and reversed and remanded for a new trial on the remaining issues. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: New trial The majority opinion by the Court of Appeals is flawed in its analysis and overlooks substantial evidence supporting the verdict. Specifically, it failed to consider the Department of Human Services’ investigation into the incident. Contrary to the conclusion of the Court of Appeals majority, much of the evidence was contradicted. Though reasonable people may disagree as to whether Windsor Place was negligent, in this instance a jury by a vote of ten to two found that it was not. The evidence shows that an employee of Windsor Place found Duff in Sanders’s room. Duff had his pants down, and he was in the bed on top of Sanders moving his hips in an up and down motion. Ensuing medical examinations did not reveal that any penetration had occurred. There was no evidence that any sexual touching or rape occurred nor was there evidence of blood or discharge. After an investigation, the Department of Health found that Windsor Place was not negligent in its treatment and protection of Sanders. There was also testimony that it was not uncommon for Alzheimer’s patients, like Duff, to talk and act in a sexually suggestive manner. Dupree’s expert witness offered no testimony of proposed treatment that she believed would have prevented the incident. She testified that the Windsor Place employees properly documented and reported Duff's behavior to the doctors. Dupree presented no evidence to establish that Sanders incurred a physical injury or that she even knew that the incident even occurred. Therefore, the jury verdict was supported by the evidence. Issue 2: Peremptory instruction Dupree argues that the court erred in failing to grant a peremptory instruction. M.R.C.P. 50 is a device for the court to enforce the rules of law by taking away from the jury cases in which the facts are sufficiently clear that the law requires a particular result. Due to the fact that there were disputed facts of whether the defendant was negligent and whether the plaintiff suffered damages, the court did not err in refusing a peremptory instruction. Issue 3: Mental damages There was no error in the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that Dupree was unable to recover damages for mental and emotional distress, since she was not near the assault scene. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
