Pinecrest, LLC v. Harris


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-CA-00433-SCT
Oral Argument: 06-08-2010
 

 

* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users).


Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-05-2010
Opinion Author: Carlson, P.J.
Holding: Reversed and remanded.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Wrongful death - Authority of successor judge - Section 9-1-105 - M.R.C.P. 60(b)(6)
Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Dickinson, Randolph, Lamar, Chandler and Pierce, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Kitchens, J.
Concurs in Result Only: Graves, P.J.
Procedural History: Jury Trial; JNOV; Judicial Recusal
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 09-29-2008
Appealed from: Copiah County Circuit Court
Judge: David H. Strong
Disposition: A Copiah County jury found unanimously for Harris and awarded damages of $750,000, and the trial court entered its judgment consistent with the jury verdict. Pinecrest filed its Motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, alternatively, for a new trial or, in the further alternative, for remittitur. The trial court denied the motion for JNOV but granted the motion for a new trial. Harris filed a motion for recusal of the trial judge, who recused; therefore, this Court appointed a special judge to preside over the remainder of the proceedings in this case. Harris subsequently filed her motion for relief from order granting new trial, which the special judge granted, thus reinstating the jury verdict.
Case Number: 2002-0670
  Consolidated: Consolidated with 2007-M-01622-SCT Eula Jane Harris, Executrix of the Estate of Myrtle R. Callendar, for the use and benefit of the Estate of Myrtle Callendar, and for the use and benefit of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Myrtle R. Callendar v. Pinecrest, LLC, Mastercare, Inc. and Pinecrest Facilities, Inc., John Does 1 through 10 and Unidentified Entities 1 through 10 (as to Pine Crest Guest Home); Copiah Circuit Court; LC Case #: 2002-0670; Ruling Date: 08/27/2007; Ruling Judge: Lamar Pickard; Consolidated with 2006-CA-00329-SCT Eula Jane Harris, Executrix of the Estate of Myrtle R. Callendar, for the Use and Benefit of the Estate of Myrtle R. Callendar, and for the Use and Benefit of the Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Myrtle R. Callendar v. G. Ron Guins and Ellen B. Harrigill; Copiah Circuit Court; LC Case #: 2002-0670; Ruling Date: 02/06/2006; Ruling Judge: Lamar Pickard

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Pinecrest, LLC and Mastercare, Inc.




CHARLES R. WILBANKS, JR., EUGENE A. SIMMONS, MATTHEW ROBERT DOWD, JAMES D. SHANNON



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: Eula Jane Harris, Executrix of the Estate of Myrtle R. Callendar, for the Use and Benefit of the Estate of Myrtle Callendar, and for the Use and Benefit of the Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Myrtle Callendar ANTHONY LANCE REINS, CAMERON CHRISTOPHER JEHL  

    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 - Authority of successor judge - Section 9-1-105 - M.R.C.P. 60(b)(6)

    Summary of the Facts: Eula Jane Harris, executrix of the estate of Myrtle R. Callendar, for the use and benefit of the estate of Myrtle Callendar, and for the use and benefit of the wrongful-death beneficiaries of Myrtle Callendar, filed suit against several defendants, including Pinecrest, LLC, and Mastercare, Inc., alleging negligence and wrongful-death claims as a result of the alleged negligent supervision of decedent Myrtle Callendar at Pinecrest’s nursing home. A jury found unanimously for Harris and awarded damages of $750,000. The trial court granted Pinecrest’s motion for a new trial. Harris filed a motion for recusal of the trial judge, who recused. A special judge was appointed to preside over the remainder of the proceedings. Harris subsequently filed a motion for relief from order granting new trial, which a special judge granted, thus reinstating the jury verdict. Pinecrest appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Pinecrest argues that Judge Strong, appointed as a special judge after Judge Pickard’s recusal pursuant to section 9-1-105, did not have the authority to vacate Judge Pickard’s prior order granting a new trial. With respect to a prior order granting a new trial, based, at least in part, on observations made during trial, deference should be given to the judge who observed the evidence as it was presented. In today’s case, Judge Strong sat in an inferior position to the first judge and did not have unbridled discretion, and therefore, did not possess the power to vacate Judge Pickard’s order granting a new trial. This is especially true where the record is devoid of any exceptional and compelling circumstances under M.R.C.P. 60(b)(6). Judge Pickard, not Judge Strong, observed the entire trial, all witnesses, and the jury. Judge Pickard was, without question, in the best place to judge the prejudicial effect of evidence and to judge whether any evidence led to bias, passion, and prejudice on the part of the jury. Thus, Judge Pickard was in a far superior position to determine the necessity of a new trial. In fact, the record establishes no basis for Judge Pickard's recusal.


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