Davis v. Walters


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-CA-00653-COA
Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-00653-COA ; 2009-CT-00653-SCT ; 2009-CT-00653-SCT
Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 05-04-2010
Opinion Author: Roberts, J.
Holding: Dismissed without prejudice
Additional Case Information: Topic: Personal injury - Rejection of additur - Jurisdiction - M.R.A.P. 4(d) - M.R.C.P. 50(c)
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Griffis, Ishee and Maxwell, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J.
Dissenting Author : Irving, J., with separate written opinion.
Dissent Joined By : Barnes, J.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-22-2008
Appealed from: TALLAHATCHIE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: James McClure, III
Disposition: JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF IN THE AMOUNT OF $759.58.
Case Number: CV-2006-1-BT1
Note: Due to a military leave of absence, Hon. Virginia C. Carlton did not participate in this hand down.
  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Randy Davis




 B. WAYNE WILLIAMS, REAGAN DAVID WISE



  
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief
    		•
    Appellee: Patricia Walters RALPH EDWIN CHAPMAN, WILLIAM HARVEY GRESHAM, JR., JOSEPH HARLAND WEBSTER  
    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 - Rejection of additur - Jurisdiction - M.R.A.P. 4(d) - M.R.C.P. 50(c)
    Summary of the Facts: Patricia Walters was involved in an accident while she was a passenger on a utility terrain vehicle, specifically a Yamaha Rhino, driven by Joel Cummings, who was nine years old at the time. Walters, who was forty-two years old at the time of the accident, suffered extensive injuries as a result of the accident, and she incurred medical bills totaling approximately $177,447. She subsequently filed suit against T & R Farms, a partnership consisting of Tracey Davis and Randy Davis; and Randy Davis. She alleged that Randy Davis, as the owner of the Rhino, negligently entrusted the UTV to his nephew, Cummings, and that such negligent entrustment was the proximate cause of her injuries. The jury returned a verdict that assessed comparative fault of 20% to Davis and 80% to Walters and awarded $3,797.92 in total damages. Walters subsequently filed a post-trial motion requesting an additur or, in the alternative, a new trial on damages. The trial court granted Walters’s request for an additur and awarded an additional $3,038.34 in damages. However, Walters rejected the additur and again requested a new trial on damages. Before the trial court had an opportunity to rule on Walters’s second request for a new trial on damages, Davis filed a notice of appeal.
    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Once the jury returned its verdict, Walters moved the court for an additur or, alternatively, a new trial on damages. The trial court granted the additur, which Davis accepted. However, Walters specifically rejected the trial court’s additur and again requested a new trial on damages. Walters’s timely request for a new trial on damages following her rejection of the proposed additur left the trial court with no option other than to grant the request and schedule a new trial on damages. As such, the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this case as it is not ripe for appellate review. Davis’s appeal is dismissed without prejudice and the case is remanded to the circuit court for a new trial on damages. Davis filed his notice of appeal after the trial court’s oral pronouncement of its denial of his motion for a JNOV on July 28, 2008, but before the formal entry of an order of denial on April 15, 2009. Ordinarily, this would remove jurisdiction from the trial court and place it at the appellate level, as indicated by the comment to M.R.A.P. 4(d). Thus, from the trial court’s point of view, it no longer had jurisdiction to commence the new trial on damages. However, the trial court never lost jurisdiction. M.R.C.P. 50(c) allows a trial court to simultaneously rule on a motion for new trial and a motion for a JNOV, which is essentially what the trial court did here. The comment to Rule 50 specifies that when a trial court grants a motion for new trial but denies a motion for a JNOV, it is not appealable and the new trial will proceed. As the trial court’s grant of an additur also acted as a conditional grant of Walters’s request for a new trial, assuming either party rejected it, the trial court’s denial of Davis’s motion for a JNOV was not an appealable order. Thus, while it may have appeared that Davis was free to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion for a JNOV as a final order, such was not the case.


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