City of Jackson, et al. v. Estate of Stewart
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-01413-SCT Linked Case(s): 2003-CA-01413-SCT ; 2003-CA-01413-SCT ; 2003-CA-01413-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-15-2005 Opinion Author: Carlson, J. Holding: Motion for Rehearing Stricken from the Files. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Lawyer civility - M.R.A.P. 40(c) Judge(s) Concurring: Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Smith, C.J., Diaz, Graves and Dickinson, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-01-2003 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Winston Kidd Disposition: After the bench trial, the trial court found that the City and the Hospital were liable and awarded the plaintiff the total amount of $1,000,000 as damages against the City and the Hospital under tort and breach of contract theories. Case Number: 251-98-816-CIV |
|
| Consolidated: Consolidated with 1999-IA-01527-SCT Otha Stewart, by and through Emma Womack, her Daughter and Conservator of Her Person and Her Estate v. City of Jackson, Mississippi, and Doris B. Spiller; Hinds Circuit Court 1st District; LC Case #: 98816CIV; Ruling Date: 09/01/1999; Ruling Judge: James Graves, Jr. | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | City of Jackson, Mississippi and University of Mississippi Medical Center |
SHARON DIANE GIPSON, PIETER JOHN TEEUWISSEN, LANNY R. PACE, CORRIE SCHULER |
||
| Appellee: | The Estate of Otha Stewart, Deceased, by and through its Administrator, Emma Womack | JAMES A. BOBO, MARK C. BAKER, BERNARD C. JONES |
|
|
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 - Lawyer civility - M.R.A.P. 40(c) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Mrs. Otha Stewart fell after exiting a van operated by the City of Jackson, as she prepared to enter a day care center operated by the University of Mississippi Medical Center. Approximately one year later, suit was commenced by Mrs. Stewart against the City, the Hospital, and Doris Spiller, the individual van driver, for injuries received in the fall. A conservatorship was later established for Mrs. Stewart, whose daughter, Emma Womack, was substituted as the party plaintiff in her official capacity as conservator of Mrs. Stewart’s estate. The defendants subsequently filed motions for summary judgment, and the trial court denied the Hospital’s summary judgment motion, but granted summary judgment in favor of the City and Spiller. Via an interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the City and Spiller. Upon remand, the trial court conducted a bench trial found that the City and the Hospital were liable and awarded the plaintiff the total amount of $1,000,000 as damages against the City and the Hospital under tort and breach of contract theories. Both the City and the Hospital appealed, and the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment as to a finding of liability against the City but remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial as to damages only against the City, with instructions to limit any award against the City to an amount not to exceed $250,000, pursuant to the MTCA. The judgment against the Hospital was reversed and rendered. Thereafter, the Estate, through counsel, filed a motion for rehearing. The Supreme Court denied the motion for rehearing, but modified the original opinion. After the Court’s initial opinion in the case was handed down, the Estate, through attorneys James A. Bobo and Mark C. Baker, Sr., signed and caused to be filed a motion for rehearing. The Court issued an en banc order reciting examples of disrespectful language contained in the motion for rehearing, and directing Bobo and Baker to file written responses to our show cause order and directing Bobo and Baker to appear before the Court, sitting en banc, to show cause as to why they should not be sanctioned. In their written responses, Baker “unequivocally apologize[d]” to the Court for his part in causing the language to appear in the motion for rehearing while Bobo deemed it his constitutional right to place the language in the motion for rehearing. It was obvious from observing Baker’s demeanor at the show cause hearing that his remorse was genuine. While there is no doubt that what Bobo said, and how he said it, (his demeanor) exhibited great respect for the Court as an institution (as well as the Court’s current members), Bobo fervently stood by his position that he had a constitutional right to write what he did in the motion for rehearing. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Bobo was mainly involved in drafting the motion for rehearing and Baker may have done little more than “sign off” on the motion for rehearing. However, as lawyers and judges know, such action on the part of a lawyer does not necessarily exonerate the lawyer from being responsible for the contents of pleadings. Notwithstanding the provisions of M.R.A.P. 40(c), the motion for rehearing signed by Bobo and Baker contained numerous instances of disrespectful language. The enforcement of M.R.A.P. 40(c) has nothing to do with the individual pride of the members of the Court, but instead, it has everything to do with preserving the integrity of the Court as an institution. Today’s case is not about constitutional free speech, but it is instead about what the judiciary of this state has a right to minimally expect by way of the conduct of the lawyers who appear before our courts as officers of the court. Zealous and effective advocacy is desirable, but it can certainly be accomplished without rude, offensive and demeaning language directed toward the court, counsel and/or party. Lawyers who assert that they are but appropriately representing their clients in a zealous manner by filing a motion containing language similar to that contained in the motion for rehearing previously filed in this case, should be prepared to accept the consequences of their actions. The conduct of the lawyers in today’s case is unprofessional and amounts to incivility. Thus, consistent with the provisions of M.R.A.P. 40(c), the motion for rehearing is stricken from the files. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
