Pierce v. Cook
| Docket Number: | 2006-CP-01842-SCT Linked Case(s): 2006-CP-01842-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-14-2008 Opinion Author: CARLSON, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Breach of contract - Alienation of affection - Intentional infliction of emotional distress - Jury instructions Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER, P.J., DICKINSON, RANDOLPH AND LAMAR, JJ. Dissenting Author : DIAZ, P.J., AND EASLEY, J., without separate written opinion. Concurs in Result Only: GRAVES, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-07-2006 Appealed from: RANKIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Samac Richardson Disposition: Ronald Henry Pierce appeals from a Rankin County Circuit Court judgment entered against him and in favor of Ernest Allan Cook, Sr. in the amount of $1,500,000 on claims of alienation of affection, breach of contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Case Number: 2002-386 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | RONALD HENRY PIERCE |
PRO SE |
|
|
| Appellee: | ERNEST ALLAN COOK, SR. | JOHN G. HOLADAY, GEORGE M. YODER, III | ||
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: | Breach of contract - Alienation of affection - Intentional infliction of emotional distress - Jury instructions |
| Summary of the Facts: | Ernest Cook, Sr. filed a complaint against Ronald Pierce alleging alienation of affection, breach of contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, based on the adulterous affair between his wife, Kathleen, and Pierce. The jury ultimately returned a verdict in favor of Cook and against Pierce, as follows: $300,000 on the alienation-of-affection claim; $200,000 on the breach-of-contract claim; and $1,000,000 on the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim. The trial court entered judgment in the total amount of $1,500,000 in favor of Cook and against Pierce. Pierce appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Breach of contract Pierce argues that his motion for partial directed verdict should have been granted as to Cook’s claim for breach of contract, because the claim is in reality a claim for legal malpractice and Cook is thus required to provide expert testimony. It is of no moment as to whether Cook’s claim was one of legal malpractice or breach of contract. Even assuming arguendo that Cook asserted a claim for legal malpractice, Cook still was not required to provide expert testimony to support his claim. Clearly, Cook did not need an expert to testify as to the standard of care owed by an attorney to his client. Ordinary jurors possess the requisite knowledge and lay expertise to determine if an adulterous affair between an attorney and his client’s wife is a breach of a duty owed by an attorney to his client. Expert testimony would not lend guidance under this circumstance. Issue 2: Intentional infliction of emotional distress Pierce argues that his motion for a directed verdict should have been granted as to Cook’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, because the one-year statute of limitations expired no later than February 1, 2002, and Cook did not file this action until December 23, 2002. A continuing tort sufficient to toll a statute of limitations is occasioned by continual unlawful acts, not by continual ill effects from an original violation. Cook testified to several wrongful acts by Pierce that occurred until the divorce which constituted repeated wrongful conduct, causing Cook emotional distress. Not only did Pierce take Kathleen on a trip to New Orleans during which they had sexual relations, but Pierce flaunted his involvement with Kathleen in front of Cook at a local restaurant in Jackson. Furthermore, there is tape-recorded evidence in which Pierce’s voice is in the background clearly “coaching” Kathleen concerning what to say to Cook. Based on this evidence, there was repeated wrongful contact by Pierce. Therefore, Cook’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was filed within the applicable one-year statute of limitations. Issue 3: Alienation of affection Pierce argues that the trial court committed prejudicial error in ruling on numerous evidentiary matters concerning Cook’s claim of alienation of affection. Moreover, Pierce argues that Cook’s counsel made statements in front of the jury which unduly prejudiced the jury and which should have entitled Pierce to a mistrial. While defendants in alienation cases must be allowed to attempt to prove that they were not the cause of the plaintiff’s divorce, Pierce was given ample opportunity to cross-examine Cook about his marriage with Kathleen. Additionally, Pierce was permitted to cross-examine Cook as to his relationship with his children before the adulterous affair. The testimony about which Pierce complains was irrelevant to the matter at hand and was properly denied by the trial court inasmuch as this evidence concerned Cook’s conduct long after the commencement of the adulterous affair between Pierce and Kathleen. Issue 4: Jury instructions Pierce argues that a jury instruction essentially allowed the Rules of Professional Conduct to be used in a civil trial without the need of expert testimony to explain them. A review of all of the instructions, taken together, show that the instructions fully informed the jury as to the necessary elements of proof concerning Cook’s claims. Thus, there was no error in the trial court's giving of the jury instruction when this instruction is read along with all the other jury instructions which were given. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
