Harrison v. Walker, et al.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-CA-01851-COA
Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-01851-COA ; 2009-CT-01851-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 06-28-2011
Opinion Author: Irving, P.J.
Holding: AFFIRMED ON DIRECT APPEAL; REVERSED AND REMANDED ON CROSSAPPEAL

Additional Case Information: Topic: Contract - Character evidence - M.R.E. 404 - M.R.E. 403 - Jury instructions - Motion for JNOV - Damages - Reasonable notice of termination
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ.
Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Russell, J., concurs in part and dissents in part without separate written opinion
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 02-11-2009
Appealed from: Covington County Circuit Court
Judge: Robert G. Evans
Disposition: DISMISSED MACK WALKER AND STAN VARNER AS INDIVIDUALS; GRANTED PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF HARRISON ON BREACH-OFCONTRACT CLAIM AND AWARDED JURY VERDICT OF $22,328; RETURNED VERDICT IN FAVOR OF TYSON ON FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT AND OTHER CLAIMS
Case Number: 2006-240C

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: James Eric Harrison




DAVID SHOEMAKE, WILLIAM BONNEY BARDWELL



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: Mack Walker, Stan Varner and Tyson Breeders, Inc. W. WAYNE DRINKWATER JR., MARY CLAY WADLINGTON MORGAN  

    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: Contract - Character evidence - M.R.E. 404 - M.R.E. 403 - Jury instructions - Motion for JNOV - Damages - Reasonable notice of termination

    Summary of the Facts: James Harrison was under contract as a chicken farmer with Tyson Breeders, Inc. Due to poor performance by Harrison, Tyson gave Harrison oral notice of termination of its contract with him. Harrison filed suit alleging breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and fraudulent inducement. Harrison filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the breach-of-contract claim. The circuit court granted Harrison’s motion, finding that Tyson had failed to give Harrison written notice of termination as required by its contract with him. After a trial, the jury awarded Harrison $22,328 in damages on the breach-of-contract claim and found in favor of Tyson on the issues of breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and fraudulent inducement. Harrison and Tyson filed cross-motions for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Harrison also filed a motion for a new trial or an additur. The circuit court denied all post-trial motions. Harrison appeals, and Tyson cross-appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Character evidence Harrison argues that the circuit court erred in admitting evidence of his farming practices prior to his first termination in 1999. Harrison argues that such evidence amounts to improper character evidence in violation of M.R.E. 404. He argues that Tyson introduced evidence of his earlier poor performance as a farmer to prove that he performed poorly after he entered into a new contract with Tyson in 2000. However, such evidence was relevant to Tyson’s defense of Harrison’s claim that it had entered into the contract with him for the sole purpose of convincing him to refinance his defaulted Oaklawn loan with another lender and wipe the loan from its books. Relevant evidence may be deemed inadmissible under M.R.E. 403 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. However, Harrison has failed to show that evidence of his prior performance should be excluded under Rule 403. Furthermore, Harrison presented evidence regarding his relationship with Tyson prior to his first termination in 1999. Where a party has introduced evidence on an issue, that party may not complain about the admission of evidence on the same proposition by an opposing party. Issue 2: Jury instructions Harrison argues that the circuit court erred by granting two jury instructions because they improperly limited the amount of damages that Harrison could recover for Tyson’s breach of contract. Specifically, Harrison asserts that these instructions prevented the jury from awarding consequential damages–the loss of his home, chicken houses, and forty acres of land. Defects in specific instructions will not mandate reversal when all of the instructions, taken as a whole fairly–although not perfectly–announce the applicable primary rules of law. Tyson’s theory of the case is reflected in the instructions, which represent an accurate statement of Mississippi law. Harrison also argues that the jury instructions precluded the jury from considering consequential damages. However, another instruction gave the jury the opportunity to consider consequential damages, such as the loss of Harrison’s home, his chicken houses, and his forty acres of land, even if, as Harrison contends, the two other instructions did not. Issue 3: Motion for JNOV Tyson argues that the circuit court erred by denying its motion for a JNOV because the jury’s award of $22,328 in damages for Tyson’s breach of contract is not supported by the evidence. Tyson argues that Harrison suffered no damages by receiving oral notice of termination versus written notice of termination as required by the contract. Whether Harrison suffered damages as a result of Tyson’s breach of contract was a question for the jury. There is no reason to question the jury’s judgment. Tyson also argues that even if Harrison is entitled to damages following its breach of contract, those damages should be limited to either: lost profits equal to the amount of time remaining under the contract when Tyson picked up Harrison’s last flock in May 2002 or lost profits earned during a period of time that constitutes reasonable notice of termination. The jury awarded $22,328 in damages, which represented one year of Harrison’s average net income from his farm. There is considerable support for Tyson’s argument that Harrison’s damages should have been limited. While it is uncontested that Tyson failed to give written notice of termination as required by its contract with Harrison, Tyson’s breach of the contract did not occur until it picked up the chickens in May 2002 and stopped performing under the contract. Harrison’s damages for Tyson’s breach of contract should be limited to the period of time constituting reasonable notice of termination. Since Tyson could terminate Harrison’s contract at any time during the contract year by giving him written notice of termination, the contract was essentially an at-will contract. Thus, the case is remanded for a new trial on damages only.


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