Perkins v. Star Transportation, Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-01714-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-01714-COA ; 2009-CT-01714-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-12-2011 Opinion Author: Griffis, P.J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Discovery sanctions - M.R.C.P. 37(c) - Apportionment of damages - Section 85-5-7 Judge(s) Concurring: Barnes, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Myers, J. Dissenting Author : Irving, P.J. With Separate Written Opinion Dissent Joined By : Lee, C.J., and Ishee, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-25-2009 Appealed from: Webster County Circuit Court Judge: Joseph H. Loper Disposition: Jury Verdict in Favor of Perkins for $556,800 Case Number: 2007-14-CV-L |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Brenda Burson Perkins |
JOHN M. “MICKEY” MONTGOMERY, DOLTON W. MCALPIN |
||
| Appellee: | Star Transportation, Inc. and Loraine W. Clark | MARK NOLAN HALBERT, JAMES GRADY WYLY 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: | Personal injury - Discovery sanctions - M.R.C.P. 37(c) - Apportionment of damages - Section 85-5-7 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Brenda Perkins was a passenger in a Toyota Camry driven by Nancy Fulgham. When Fulgham turned south on Highway 15 and attempted to cross the two eastbound lanes of Highway 82, her automobile was struck by an eighteen-wheeler that was driven by Loraine Clark. The eighteen-wheeler was owned by Star Transportation, Inc. Both Fulgham and Perkins filed separate complaints against Clark and Star Transportation. The same attorneys represented Perkins and Fulgham. Both complaints asserted a claim for negligence and gross negligence. Perkins’s complaint asked for both compensatory and punitive damages. Clark and Star Transportation, through joint counsel, filed an answer to Perkins’s complaint. Their answer admitted that the accident occurred but denied liability, either in general or on the grounds of insufficient information. Their answer included twenty-two affirmative defenses. Clark and Star Transportation filed a motion for partial summary judgment and asked the circuit court to dismiss Perkins’s claim for punitive damages and additional claims raised in her amended complaint. The court granted the motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed Perkins’s claim for punitive damages. The circuit court also dismissed the claims that Perkins had raised in her amended complaint. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury awarded Perkins $556,800 in damages. On June 23, 2009, the circuit court entered the final judgment. On July 2, 2009, Perkins served Clark and Star Transportation with her motion for imposition of sanctions in the amount of $192,000 pursuant to M.R.C.P. 37(c), asserted that Clark and Star Transportation had failed to admit the truth of the matters requested under M.R.C.P. 36. The court denied the motion. Perkins appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Perkins argues that it was an abuse of discretion for the circuit court to deny the motion for sanctions under Rule 37(c). The circuit court correctly concluded that, “while the defendants’ theory that Nancy Fulgham was partially at fault in causing the accident was unlikely to be successful, that theory was not a frivolous defense.” The circuit court was correct to rule that Clark and Star Transportation, as “the part[ies] failing to admit,” indeed “had [a] reasonable ground to believe that he might prevail on the matter, or . . . there was other good reason for the failure to admit.” Fulgham’s complaint asserted claims for negligence and gross negligence. Clark and Star Transportation denied that they were negligent or grossly negligent and asserted affirmative defenses that the accident was caused in whole or in part by the negligence of Fulgham. During discovery, Perkins served requests for admission that asked Clark and Star Transportation to admit to the claim of negligence. They refused. Instead, they specifically denied that: Clark had caused the accident; Clark was driving in excess of the posted speed limit; and Clark failed to yield the right-of-way to the vehicle driven by Fulgham. Clark did, however, admit that she “failed to stop at the four-way stop.” Based on this response, the question of Clark and Star Transportation’s negligence was an issue to be tried by the jury. In routine car accident cases, the elements of duty, breach of duty, and causation are proven by eyewitnesses and expert witnesses. It is clear from the circuit court’s order that the court did not believe it was necessary for Perkins to call expert witnesses to establish Clark and Star Transportation’s negligence. In part, this was due to the earlier litigation brought by Fulgham. Clark and Star Transportation’s answers raised Fulgham’s contributory negligence and their right to allocation of fault. The triable issues included not only the negligence of Clark and Star Transportation but also the negligence of Fulgham. The circuit court recognized that the issue of whether Fulgham was partially at fault was an issue to be tried regardless of the fact that Clark and Star Transportation denied or conceded their negligence. The allocation of fault was a proper issue for the jury to consider a relevant issue for the parties to offer evidence. Perkins was required to offer evidence of negligent conduct so the jury could allocate fault between the potential wrong doers, Fulgham, Clark, and Star Transportation. Therefore, at the time that Clark and Star Transportation filed their responses to Perkins’s requests for admissions, they had reasonable grounds to conclude that Fulgham’s negligence in failing to see Clark’s tractor-trailer approaching the intersection before Fulgham proceeded across the eastbound lanes of Highway 82 contributed, at least in part, to the collision. It is true that Clark and Star Transportation did not file a motion to correct or supplement their responses to the requests for admissions. However, Rule 37(c) provides no sanction for failure to supplement. Moreover, it appears that, as soon as Star Transportation obtained the GPS and onboard computer data, Star Transportation provided Perkins with that information. Clark and Star Transportation’s designated expert admitted that Clark had been speeding and that she caused the accident. The circuit court was correct to recognize that Fulgham’s contributory negligence was indeed a triable issue for the jury. Fulgham’s fault or negligence would be considered to apportion damages under section 85-5-7. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
