Children's Medical Group, P. A. v. Phillips, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2005-IA-00593-SCT Linked Case(s): 2005-IA-00593-SCT ; 2005-TS-00593-SCT ; 2005-TS-00593-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-26-2006 Opinion Author: DICKINSON, J. Holding: AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Alienation of affection - Motion to dismiss - Wrongful conduct - Acting in scope and course of employment Judge(s) Concurring: DIAZ, EASLEY AND RANDOLPH, JJ., AND BARRY, S.J. Non Participating Judge(s): SMITH, C.J., WALLER AND COBB, P.JJ., CARLSON AND GRAVES, JJ. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Parker, S.J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-08-2005 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Winston Kidd Disposition: Denied Appellant's Motion to Dismiss Case Number: 251-04-1202CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | CHILDREN’S MEDICAL GROUP, P. A. |
JOHN L. LOW, MILDRED M. MORRIS |
||
| Appellee: | ROBERT PHILLIPS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF TANNER WADE PHILLIPS AND GRANT RUSSELL PHILLIPS, MINORS | CHUCK McRAE, WILLIAM B. KIRKSEY, MINOR F. BUCHANAN |
|
|
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: | Alienation of affection - Motion to dismiss - Wrongful conduct - Acting in scope and course of employment |
| Summary of the Facts: | Prior to the divorce of Robert and Julie Phillips, Robert alleges that he discovered Julie was having an affair with Dr. Erwyn E. Freeman, Jr., who was Julie’s coworker at Children’s Medical Group, P.A. Robert sued Dr. Freeman and CMG, claiming both were liable for alienating Julie’s affections for him. CMG filed a motion to dismiss arguing the tort of alienation of affections requires intentional acts of misconduct, and Robert failed to allege any intentional conduct by CMG; CMG owed no duty to Robert to prevent Dr. Freeman from pursuing a consensual affair with another employee; and CMG was not vicariously liable for its employees’ consensual sexual relationships, as those activities were beyond the employees’ course and scope of employment. The court denied the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court granted an interlocutory appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Under the common law a husband is entitled to the services and companionship and consortium of his wife. When he is wrongfully deprived of these rights, he is entitled to a cause of action against one who has interfered with his domestic relations. The required elements of an alienation of affections lawsuit include wrongful conduct of the defendant, loss of affection or consortium, and a causal connection between the conduct and the loss. The wrongful conduct necessary to maintain an action for alienation of affections is the direct and intentional interference with the marriage relationship by the defendant. It is true that Robert fails to specify CMG’s conduct that directly and intentionally interfered with his marriage. However, under our rules, Robert is not required to plead the specific wrongful conduct. At the pleading stage, he is required only to place CMG on reasonable notice of the claims against it and to demonstrate that he has alleged a recognized cause of action upon which, under some set of facts, he might prevail. Because the Court cannot say, as a matter of law, that there are no possible facts which could result in CMG’s liability for alienation of affections, the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss is affirmed. CMG also argues that Robert cannot be granted relief against it based on the theory of vicarious liability. Conduct of a servant is within the scope of employment if it is of the kind he is employed to perform; it occurs substantially within the authorized time and space limits; it is actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the master, and if force is intentionally used by the servant against another, the use of force is not unexpectable by the master. Conduct of a servant is not within the scope of employment if it is different in kind from that authorized, far beyond the authorized time or space limits, or too little actuated by a purpose to serve the master. The question is whether Robert can prove any set of facts showing Dr. Freeman’s alleged consensual sexual relationship with Robert’s wife was within the course and scope of his employment with CMG. No such showing can be made. Thus, the trial court erred as a matter of law in finding that a claim was stated as to whether Dr. Freeman, in having an alleged consensual affair with a coworker, was acting within the course and scope of his employment with CMG |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
