Burley v. Douglas
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-02134-SCT Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-02134-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-05-2009 Opinion Author: Waller, C.J. Holding: Reversed and remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wrongful death - Standing - Section 11-7-13 Judge(s) Concurring: Carlson, P.J., Dickinson, Randolph, Lamar, Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Kitchens, J. with separate written opinion. Concur in Part, Concur in Result Joined By 1: Graves, P.J. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, P.J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-07-2007 Appealed from: YAZOO COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Jannie M. Lewis Disposition: The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Case Number: 2004-C146 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JAMES A. BURLEY, PARENT/GUARDIAN AND
NEXT FRIEND OF FRANCESCA HILL, JOSHUA
HILL AND JAKURA HILL, MINORS |
EDUARDO ALBERTO FLECHAS |
||
| Appellee: | EDDIE E. DOUGLAS AND YAZOO VALLEY ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION | BRADLEY F. HATHAWAY, PHILIP A. GUNN |
|
|
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 - Standing - Section 11-7-13 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Francesca Hill and her two minor children, Joshua and Jakura, were killed when the car they were in was struck by a truck driven by Eddie Douglas. At the time of the accident, Douglas was driving a truck owned by his employer, Yazoo Valley Electric Power Association. James Burley filed a wrongful-death action against Douglas and YVEPA. He sought compensatory damages, as well as $20,000,000 in punitive damages. YVEPA denied liability and asserted, inter alia, Burley’s lack of standing as an affirmative defense to the action. Nearly one year after commencement of the action, Burley filed petitions for appointment of administrator and for issuance of letters of administration, representing that Joshua and Jakura were survived by “two grandparents, namely James Burley and Earnestine Hill.” Letters of administration were granted to Burley. Thereafter, the chancery court entered orders determining the heirs-at-law of Joshua and Jakura Hill. Those heirship orders concluded that Burley, among others, was an heir-at-law of both Joshua and Jakura. Two years later, YVEPA filed a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment, as to the wrongful-death claims for Joshua and Jakura on the ground that Burley lacked standing to commence a wrongful-death action on their behalf. The circuit court, finding that Burley lacked standing, dismissed the claims and entered judgment for YVEPA. Burley appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Burley argues that he was a proper plaintiff to commence and maintain this wrongful death action because he was judicially determined to be an heir at law and wrongful death beneficiary to the decedents. Section 11-7-13 creates a new and independent cause of action in favor of those named in the statute. The statute provides three categories of potential wrongful-death claimants who may commence a wrongful-death action. The action may be brought by the personal representative on behalf of the estate and all other persons entitled to recover; by one of the wrongful death beneficiaries on behalf of all persons entitled to recover; or by all interested parties. At the time the lawsuit was initiated, Burley was not the administrator of Joshua’s and Jakura’s estates. He was not formally appointed as administrator of the estates of Joshua and Jakura Hill until more than one year after he commenced the wrongful-death suit. As no estate had been opened at the time the complaint was filed, Burley could not have been the administrator of nonexistent estates. The fact that Burley subsequently was appointed administrator of the estates of Joshua and Jakura does not change the fact that Burley lacked standing, as a personal representative, to commence the suit because standing is to be determined as of the commencement of suit. Thus, he did not have standing, as a personal representative, to file this wrongful-death action. Burley, as Joshua and Jakura’s grandparent, is not one of the listed relatives in the statute who may bring suit. The Legislature did not confer upon grandparents standing to bring wrongful-death actions. The statute allows an action to be brought by the widow, husband, child, father, mother, sister or brother of the deceased, or by all interested parties. Therefore, not only may an interested party join a wrongful-death suit, but an interested party may initiate a wrongful-death action under the terms of the statute. One who qualifies as an heir of the deceased also qualifies as an interested party under the wrongful death statute. Burley is a blood relative of Joshua and Jakura Hill, and because Francesca Hill – Joshua and Jakura’s mother and their only available listed relative – was killed in the same accident that tragically claimed Joshua’s and Jakura’s lives, she was removed from the line of descent and distribution. Thus, at the moment of their deaths, Burley held the status of an heir of Joshua and Jakura Hill, such that, under our laws of intestate descent and distribution, he would have been entitled to inherit property from them. His later adjudication by the chancery court as an heir-at-law of the children merely confirmed this status. Thus, when he commenced the suit, Burley qualified as an “interested party” under the terms of the statute, and he was an appropriate wrongful-death claimant under the facts of this case. It is clear that Burley’s complaint does not indicate that Burley brought the suit as personal representative of the deceased children or on behalf of the children’s estates. It indicates that he, individually, had suffered injury. However, his amended complaint asks for compensatory and punitive damages, as well as damages for “medical expenses, funeral expenses, and damages to personal property.” Burley brought many different claims within his wrongful-death action. He included claims for his own individual injuries (such as loss of society and companionship, etc.) and claims for property damage and medical and funeral expenses, which may be characterized as claims of the estates. Burley was required to bring the so-called “estate claims” because section 11-7-13 instructs that there shall be but one suit for the same death which shall ensue for the benefit of all parties concerned. The fact that Burley happens to be seeking the same damages as Joshua’s and Jakura’s estates would seek, namely medical and funeral expenses, does not change the nature of Burley’s suit nor his standing as an interested party to bring it. Burley amended his complaint specifically to seek damages for property damage and medical and funeral expenses only after he was appointed administrator of Joshua and Jakura Hill’s estates. Burley had standing to bring the suit as an interested party from the moment of Joshua’s and Jakura’s deaths, but he gained the ability to recover on behalf of the estates only after those estates came into existence and he was appointed administrator. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
