Hayes, et al. v. Entergy Miss., Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2001-CA-01755-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-29-2004 Opinion Author: Cobb, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wrongful death - Change of venue - Discovery responses - Jury misconduct Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Carlson and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Randolph, JJ. Dissenting Author : Easley, J. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-25-2001 Appealed from: Coahoma County Circuit Court Judge: Al Smith Disposition: Jury verdict in favor of Entergy. Case Number: 14-CI-97-0080 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Vanessa Hayes, Individually, and on Behalf of All Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Carlos Miles, Deceased, and Amicia Miles, Deceased; Vanessa Hayes, as Mother and Next Friend of Cartavious Miles, a Minor; Kathleen Hayes, Individually, and on Behalf of All Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Cashius Hayes, Deceased, and Kiaria Hayes, Deceased; Kashius Lewis, Individually; and Carlos Miles, Individually |
W. STEPHENS COX
CHARLES M. MERKEL
CHARLES VICTOR McTEER |
||
| Appellee: | Entergy Mississippi, Inc. | JOHN H. DUNBAR |
|
|
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 - Change of venue - Discovery responses - Jury misconduct |
| Summary of the Facts: | Vanessa Hayes, Kathleen Hayes, Kashius Lewis, and Carlos Miles sued Entergy Mississippi, Inc. and Baker Engineering, asserting that both were negligent in repairing a meter and failing to reconnect the ground wire and for failing to inspect the condition of the ground wire. The case ended with a hung jury. Before the start of the second trial, the plaintiffs settled with Baker Engineering. The second trial ended with a jury verdict in favor of Entergy. The plaintiffs appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Change of venue The plaintiffs argue that the court erred in transferring venue and suggest that the court should have taken other corrective measures to ensure the impartiality of the jury. After careful consideration, the court determined that the evidence supported the change of venue, and the plaintiffs fail to demonstrate an abuse of discretion in that decision. Issue 2: Discovery responses The plaintiffs argue that the court should have sanctioned Entergy for its failure to timely produce and comply with discovery. If there is no intent or willful neglect by the violating party, the court is not justified in imposing sanctions. Here, there is nothing in the record to indicate that Entergy acted with intent or was willfully negligent in supplementing its discovery responses. In addition, the plaintiffs fail to show that they were prejudiced by Entergy's supplementation. Issue 3: Jury misconduct The plaintiffs argue that a post-trial investigation was warranted to determine whether there was jury misconduct, since three jurors asserted that they were pressured into making a decision by other members of the jury who had grown impatient with the deliberation process. In the absence of a threshold showing of external influences, an inquiry into the juror verdict is not required. Based on the proffered testimony of the three jurors, it is clear that there was no external influence upon the jury. When polled each of the three jurors voted for the verdict. Therefore, there were not sufficient grounds to warrant any investigation of the jury. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
