Howard v. Wilson
| Docket Number: | 2010-IA-01181-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-26-2011 Opinion Author: Randolph, J. Holding: Reversed and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Statute of limitations - Section 15-1-35 - Intentional tort - Characterization of claim Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson, P.J., Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler, Pierce and King, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Dickinson, P.J. Procedural History: Interlocutory Appeal; Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-01-2010 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Winston Kidd Disposition: The trial court denied Howard's Motion to Dismiss. Case Number: 251-09-39CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Jocelyn Howard and Citi Trends, Inc. |
MELTON JAMES WEEMS, DENITA NICOLE SMITH, MITZI LEASHA GEORGE, TIMOTHY DALE CRAWLEY |
||
| Appellee: | Lyshell Wilson | JOEL AMOS GORDON, BARRY W. GILMER |
|
|
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 - Statute of limitations - Section 15-1-35 - Intentional tort - Characterization of claim |
| Summary of the Facts: | Lyshell Wilson filed a complaint alleging that she was brutally injured when an employee of Citi Trends, Jocelyn Howard, maliciously, reckless, negligently, and violently attacked Lyshell Wilson with a pair of scissors. Howard filed a Motion to Dismiss based on the running of the one-year statute of limitations found in section 15-1-35 for assault and battery claims. Wilson insisted that the claim set forth in the complaint was a claim of negligence. The court denied Howard’s motion. The Supreme Court granted an interlocutory appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Howard argues that Mississippi law prohibits Wilson from characterizing the “violent attack” as an act of negligence in order to escape the operation of the one-year statute of limitations applicable to intentional torts. Wilson attempts to characterize her suit as one not for an intentional tort, but rather for negligence. This alleged act of negligence is described by Wilson in the complaint as follows, “Jocelyn Howard, maliciously, reckless[ly], negligently, and violently attacked Lyshell Wilson with a pair of scissors. Jocelyn Howard repeatedly stabbed Lyshell Wilson . . . causing serious bodily injuries” during the “heinous attack.” The language of the complaint is akin to a common law assault and battery, not an act of negligence. Simply adding “negligently” to the list of adjectives describing the attack does not make it an act of negligence when the action is in essence, one to recover on an intentional tort. There is no such thing as a “negligent battery.” Having missed the deadline for filing an intentional-tort claim for the violent attack, Wilson drafted the complaint to sound in negligence. However, there can be no escape from the bar of the statute of limitations applicable to intentional torts by the mere refusal to style the cause brought in a recognized statutory category and thereby circumvent prohibition of the statute. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
