Spotlight Skating Rink, Inc. v. Barnes


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-CA-00289-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-00289-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 06-19-2008
Opinion Author: DIAZ, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Wrongful death - Negligent supervision - Failure to render aid - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702
Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER, P.J., EASLEY, CARLSON, GRAVES, DICKINSON, RANDOLPH AND LAMAR, JJ.
Procedural History: JNOV
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 11-02-2005
Appealed from: WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Richard Smith
Disposition: A jury found the defendant liable for wrongful death and awarded the plaintiff $600,000 in damages.
Case Number: CI 2002-128

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: SPOTLITE SKATING RINK, INC.




LEANN W. NEALEY, PAUL MICHAEL ELLIS



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: BIANCA ZWYACA BARNES, BY AND THROUGH MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, VEARLY BARNES ON BEHALF OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES AND AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF BIANCA ZWYACA BARNES, DECEASED GEORGE F. HOLLOWELL, JR.  

    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 - Negligent supervision - Failure to render aid - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702

    Summary of the Facts: After falling and hitting her head at the Spotlite Skating Rink, Bianca Barnes died. An undiagnosed colloid cyst had blocked the flow of spinal fluid from her brain, ultimately causing her death. The plaintiff proceeded against Spotlite on two theories: that Spotlite was negligent in supervising Bianca and could have prevented the fall; and that Spotlite was negligent by failing to render aid to Bianca once she was injured. The jury was given instructions as to both theories and returned a general verdict in favor of the plaintiff, assessing damages at $600,000. Spotlite appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Negligent supervision Spotlite argues that there was no evidence to support a finding that Spotlite breached its duty of supervision and care. Regarding the duty to supervise, the proprietor engaged in the business of providing public recreation or amusement must exercise a reasonable degree of watchfulness to guard against injuries likely to happen in view of the character of the amusement. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Spotlite breached its duty of supervision by allowing Bianca onto the skating rink without skates. Both the plaintiff’s expert and Spotlite’s employee testified that the rink should not allow persons onto the floor without skates. Although the employee testified that Bianca was wearing skates and that he helped her onto the floor, there was sufficient evidence that Bianca was not wearing skates and that no employee was present when she entered the rink. Spotlite also argues that there was no proof of causation because her preexisting medical condition was the sole cause of her death. However, there was sufficient evidence of causation, as two expert witnesses testified that the fall caused the cyst to become dislodged and block the flow of fluid from her brain. Spotlite argues that it cannot be held liable for Bianca’s death because such an injury was unforeseeable. Two medical experts testified that the head trauma caused Bianca’s cyst to dislodge and eventually render her brain dead. Therefore, even if Bianca’s death may not have been foreseeable, there was sufficient evidence that a fall resulting in a head injury was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of a lack of supervision. Issue 2: Failure to render aid The Restatement (Second) of Torts provides that an owner of land who holds it open to the public is under a duty to take reasonable action to give invitees first aid after the owner knows or has reason to know that they are ill or injured, and to care for them until they can be cared for by others. According to the plaintiff’s witnesses in the present case, no one from Spotlite attempted to render care to Bianca after she had fallen. Further, no one from Spotlite made any attempt to contact Bianca’s mother at her workplace, even though they knew she was working at the sheriff’s department. An expert testified that Spotlite should have required a parental form, should have had a staff member trained in CPR and first-aid, and should have taken Bianca to a hospital after she continued to cry and complain of a headache. Viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there was sufficient evidence to support that Spotlite breached its duty of care. Issue 3: Expert testimony Spotlite argues that the court erred in admitting the testimony of an economist, because his testimony should have been excluded under M.R.E. 702 since he failed to consider characteristics specific to Bianca when calculating the present net cash value of her life expectancy. In cases brought for the wrongful death of a child where there is no past income upon which to base a calculation of projected future income, there is a rebuttable presumption that the deceased child's income would have been the equivalent of the national average as set forth by the United States Department of Labor. Either party may rebut the presumption by presenting relevant credible evidence to the finder of fact. The consumption rate is another factor which may be argued by the parties to the finder of fact in support of increasing or decreasing the presumption that the deceased child’s income would have been equivalent to the national average. In this case, the economist took the national average income established by the U.S. Department of Labor, multiplied that number by her work life expectancy, and subtracted taxes, personal consumption, and education costs. He then added fringe benefits and entitlement benefits to arrive at his final figure. Spotlite was given ample opportunity to rebut the presumption that Bianca’s income would have been the equivalent of the national average as set forth by the United States Department of Labor. As the finder of fact, the jury found that the defendant had not adequately rebutted this presumption.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court