Miss. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Durn
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-01270-SCT Linked Case(s): 2002-CA-01270-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-26-2005 Opinion Author: Easley, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Supreme Court mandate - Comparative fault Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson, Graves and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Dickinson, JJ. Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-21-2002 Appealed from: Sunflower County Circuit Court Judge: W. Ashley Hines Disposition: Enumerated specific facts in its decision to support finding that Durn was not at fault for the accident considering the question of comparative fault on remand. Case Number: 2000-0504-CI |
|
| Consolidated: Consolidated with 2004-CA-01763-SCT Mississippi Department of Public Safety v. Sammie L. Durn; Sunflower Circuit Court; LC Case #: 2000-0504-; Ruling Date: 08/19/2004; Ruling Judge: W. Ashley Hines | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Mississippi Department of Public Safety |
BENJAMIN E. GRIFFITH,
CHRISTOPHER F. POWELL |
||
| Appellee: | Sammie L. Durn | STEVEN TODD JEFFREYS, J. KIRKHAM POVALL |
|
|
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 - Supreme Court mandate - Comparative fault |
| Summary of the Facts: | Sammie Durn brought suit against the Mississippi Department of Public Safety and State Trooper Reginald Lantern for injuries he sustained in a motor vehicle accident with Lantern. The court found that Lantern acted in reckless disregard of Durn's safety and well-being and awarded Durn $160,453 in damages. The Department of Public Safety appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Immunity The Department of Public Safety argues that it is entitled to immunity because Lantern did not act in reckless disregard of Durn's safety and well-being, and Durn performed an illegal turn which was the cause of the accident. To be entitled to immunity under section 11-46-9, the officer must not have acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others. Reckless disregard usually is accompanied by a conscious indifference to consequences, amounting almost to a willingness that harm should follow. Here, the court did not err in finding Lantern acted in reckless disregard of the safety and well-being of others. There were inconsistencies in Lantern's testimony concerning his speed that cast doubt on his entire testimony. The Department also argues that Durn was engaged in criminal activity at the time of his injury, because he committed a misdemeanor traffic offense by making a left turn when it was not reasonably safe to do so. Durn's left turn was not the criminal activity that caused Lantern to give chase. The officer's conduct had nothing to do with the alleged criminal activity. Therefore, the court correctly found that Durn was not engaged in criminal activity at the time of the accident. Issue 2: Damages The Department argues that the court abused its discretion by awarding $148,000 in damages for pain and suffering, emotional distress, and permanent disability when the amount was not supported by the evidence and by failing to determine the extent of Durn's negligence. An award will normally not be set aside unless so unreasonable in amount as to strike mankind at first blush as being beyond all measure, unreasonable in amount and outrageous. The court in this case did not abuse its discretion as to the amount of damages. Durn's emotional well-being and ability to do different types of physical labor was well documented, and Durn suffered a 10% impairment that would limit his ability to perform the jobs he performed outside of his regular employment. However, because the Department affirmatively pled comparative negligence as a defense in its answer and placed evidence of Durn's negligence before the court, the case is remanded since the court failed to determine if comparative fault should be assigned to Durn, and whether the award of damages should be reduced accordingly. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
