Wright v. Royal Carpet Serv.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2007-CA-01668-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 02-23-2010
Opinion Author: Roberts, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Personal injury - Collateral source rule - M.R.E. 403 - Waiver - Failure to mitigate damage - M.R.E. 804(b)(3) - Admission by party-opponent - M.R.E. 801(d)(2)
Judge(s) Concurring: Myers, P.J., Griffis and Ishee, JJ.
Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Maxwell, J., with separate written opinion
Concur in Part, Concur in Result Joined By 1: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Barnes and Carlton, JJ.
Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J., without separate written opinion.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 09-06-2007
Appealed from: LOWNDES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Lee J. Howard
Disposition: JURY VERDICT IN FAVOR OF ROYAL CARPET
Case Number: 2004-0034-CV1

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: MARCY WRIGHT




JIM WAIDE



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: ROYAL CARPET SERVICES B. WAYNE WILLIAMS, PAUL NATHAN JENKINS, 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: Personal injury - Collateral source rule - M.R.E. 403 - Waiver - Failure to mitigate damage - M.R.E. 804(b)(3) - Admission by party-opponent - M.R.E. 801(d)(2)

    Summary of the Facts: Marcy Wright filed suit against seven defendants on a variety of claims related to the cleanup of her home after a pipe ruptured leaving water throughout her home. The case was removed to federal court. After nearly two years of litigation, Wright reached a settlement with the insurance defendants, so the matter was remanded to the state circuit court, leaving only the resident defendants, Royal Carpet and Service Pro South. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Royal Carpet. Wright appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Compensation or indemnity received by the plaintiff from a collateral source such as insurance cannot be used by the defendant to mitigate or reduce damages. However, the collateral-source rule applies only when the compensation is for the same injury for which the damages at issue are sought. Further, if evidence is introduced for a purpose other than to mitigate damages, the collateral-source rule is not violated and the evidence may be admitted. All evidence must pass through the ultimate filter of M.R.E. 403. Royal Carpet argues that Wright has waived any argument related to the preclusion of evidence of her homeowner’s insurance because, at trial, she was the first to make mention of insurance or introduce evidence regarding her insurance. Although there were instances when Wright’s attorney objected to questions about Wright’s dealings with her insurance company, there were numerous other references to her communications and negotiations with the insurance company that were either brought up by Wright or were not objected to. Even Wright does not dispute that she first introduced to the jury that she indeed had insurance coverage on her home. Thus, this issue is procedurally barred by her failure to raise a contemporaneous objection at trial. In addition, the trial judge did not err in his determination that Royal Carpet could elicit testimony about Wright’s failure to mitigate the damage caused by the initial water leak. Without question, a person injured in tort is required to take reasonable steps to mitigate his damages. Wright had a duty, within a reasonable length of time after the original damage, to remedy the faulty situation and prevent subsequent damage. Testimony established that Wright was offered the means to repair the damage years earlier, but she had obstinately refused because no one could give her a one-hundred-percent guarantee that she would never get sick if she occupied the home after the repairs. From the record, the evidence of insurance was offered for a reason other than to allow Royal Carpet to mitigate its damages. It was offered to show that Wright had failed to mitigate her damages. Royal Carpet sought to introduce evidence related to a letter that Wright sent to her insurance company on June 23, 2003. In that letter, she placed one hundred percent of the blame for the damage to her real and personal property upon her insurance carrier. Royal Carpet argues that it was admissible because it was a statement against interest, and the trial court determined that it was an admissible statement, as an admission. The letter was not a statement against interest under the hearsay exception of M.R.E. 804(b)(3) because Wright was not an unavailable witness. Rather, it was admissible under M.R.E. 801(d)(2), as an admission by party-opponent. At trial, Wright testified that she was making claims against Mattison for her property loss, both real and personal, as well as for her mental anguish. However, she acknowledged that she had written the letter to her insurance company approximately four years earlier, wherein she stated that she placed all of the responsibility on her insurance company. Although there was the danger of prejudice, which the collateral-source rule and M.R.E. 403 are designed to avoid, the evidence was offered for a purpose other than to allow Royal Carpet to mitigate its damages, and the statement’s probative value outweighed the possibility of prejudice.


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