J & J Timber Co. v. Broome, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2004-IA-01914-SCT Linked Case(s): 2004-IA-01914-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 03-20-2006 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-04-2006 Opinion Author: DICKINSON, J. Holding: REVERSED AND RENDERED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Release - Derivative vicarious liability claim - Doctrine of respondeat superior - Reservation of rights Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER AND COBB, P.JJ. AND CARLSON, J. Non Participating Judge(s): DIAZ AND RANDOLPH, JJ. Dissenting Author : EASLEY AND GRAVES, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-13-2004 Appealed from: MARION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Michael R. Eubanks Disposition: Jury returned unanimous verdict in favor of Appellant; however, court granted Appellee a new trial Case Number: 2001-0317 |
|
| Note: | Appellant's Motion to Strike Portions of Appellees' Brief is denied. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | J & J TIMBER COMPANY, A MISSISSIPPI
CORPORATION
|
WILLIAM W. McKINLEY, JR.,
DORRANCE AULTMAN |
||
| Appellee: | REMBERT J. BROOME, SON AND NEXT FRIEND OF JAMES C. BROOME, DECEASED, AND REMBERT J. BROOME, FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND OF SARAH M. BROOME, A MINOR, DECEASED | T. JACKSON LYONS |
|
|
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: | Personal injury - Release - Derivative vicarious liability claim - Doctrine of respondeat superior - Reservation of rights |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jim Smith Trucking, a business engaged in hauling logs from timber vendors’ yards to timber mills, hired Brent Galatas to drive its hauling truck. Approximately three to four months before the accident at issue, Smith contracted with J&J Timber Company to haul its logs. J&J Timber specified the species, type, length, cut, and amount of timber to be hauled to particular mills by Smith’s driver, Galatas. In 1999, Galatas delivered two loads of J&J Timber’s logs to its specified timber yard. After hauling and unloading the second load, Galatas was driving back to Smith’s house in the unloaded truck when he collided with a bus occupied by a family of gospel singers on their way to perform a concert. The collision disintegrated the front of the bus, and two people, James C. Broome and Sarah M. Broome, were killed. Prior to instituting litigation, the wrongful death beneficiaries of James and Sarah, including Rembert J. Broome, reached a settlement with Galatas and Smith. Thereafter, Rembert Broome filed a wrongful death action against J&J Timber, charging it with vicarious liability for the negligence of its employee, Galatas. At the conclusion of testimony, the issue submitted to the jury was whether J&J Timber could be held vicariously liable for Galatas’ negligence in causing the crash. To reach that issue, the jury was first required to determine whether Galatas was J&J Timber’s employee. The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of J&J Timber. However, the trial court granted Broome a new trial, stating it had misinstructed the jury and improperly restricted Broome by forcing him to abandon what the trial court concluded was a viable dual employment theory of liability. The Supreme Court granted an interlocutory appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | J&J Timber argues that Broome’s release of Galatas and agreement to indemnify him against all third-party claims effectively preclude Broome from pursuing an action against J&J Timber based on vicariously liability. J&J Timber also argues that when an injured party releases the only negligent actor from liability, a derivative claim of liability against the employer is extinguished. J&J Timber points out that it has a common law right of indemnification against Galatas, who was the only actively negligent party. Thus, Broome would seek reimbursement from Galatas of any judgment against it. Galatas in turn would seek reimbursement from Broome pursuant to the indemnification agreement. Thus, in effect, Broome would be ultimately responsible for the payment of any judgment, rendering moot Broome’s suit against J&J Timber. An action against an employer based on the doctrine of respondeat superior is a derivative claim arising solely out of the negligent conduct of its employee within the scope of his or her employment. Loss of consortium is similarly derivative, and Mississippi law dictates that if the underlying personal injury claim is disposed of, the loss of consortium claim cannot be maintained on its own. While Broome did not have his claims against Galatas thrown out, he voluntarily settled them and released Galatas from the threat of any further action. The principles precluding a loss of consortium claim when the underlying action is gone apply equally to this case with respect to an employer’s vicarious liability. Once Broome discharged Galatas, the purely derivative vicarious liability claim against J&J Timber became barred. Having settled with Galatas and released him from liability, and absent allegations of independent negligence on the part of J&J Timber, Broome may not maintain an action against the company. To the extent that W.J. Runyon & Sons, Inc. v. Davis, 605 So.2d 38 (Miss. 1992) holds that a vicarious liability claim can be maintained against the employer after the employee is released, without an allegation of independent negligence by the employer, that case is overruled. A majority of states have adopted the position that the release of a tortfeasor thereby releases the tortfeasor’s principal for all claims of vicarious liability, despite any reservation of rights. The Supreme Court adopts the position advocated by these courts that the injured party’s release of an employee extinguishes all claims of vicarious liability against the employer, despite any reservation of rights. Broome argues that the right of an injured person to settle with and release one tortfeasor while reserving his right to proceed against others who may be legally responsible has been upheld in a long line of cases. Here, Galatas is the sole tortfeasor. There is no apportionment of fault required in this case because the only person who committed any wrong was Galatas. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
