Rhoda v. Weathers
| Docket Number: | 2010-CT-00797-SCT Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-00797-COA ; 2010-CA-00797-COA ; 2010-CT-00797-SCT ; 2010-CT-00797-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-08-2012 Opinion Author: Waller, C.J. Holding: THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DE SOTO COUNTY IS REINSTATED AND AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Requests for admission - Sanctions - M.R.C.P. 37(c) - Business records - M.R.E. 803(6) - M.R.E. 902(11) - Custodian of records Judge(s) Concurring: Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ., Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler, Pierce and King, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY Writ of Certiorari: Granted Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-27-2010 Appealed from: DeSoto County Circuit Court Judge: Robert P. Chamberlin Disposition: JURY VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT Case Number: CV2009-0136CD |
|
| Note: | The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals with respect to its reversal of the trial court on the issue of sanctions. The Court of Appeals' opinion can be found at http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO71316.pdf . | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Marvin Rhoda |
BENJAMIN L. TAYLOR |
||
| Appellee: | Edith W. Weathers | RUSSELL BARTON JORDAN DAWN DAVIS CARSON | ||
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 - Requests for admission - Sanctions - M.R.C.P. 37(c) - Business records - M.R.E. 803(6) - M.R.E. 902(11) - Custodian of records |
| Summary of the Facts: | In 2004, Marvin Rhoda and Edith Weathers were involved in an automobile collision in Southaven. Rhoda sued Weathers, alleging negligence, and the jury returned a verdict for Weathers. The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury’s verdict, but reversed and remanded the trial court’s refusal to assess sanctions against Weathers for failing to admit to certain requests made by Rhoda in discovery. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | When a party fails to admit a matter or the genuineness of a document that is later proven at trial, the requesting party may move the court to require the other party to pay the reasonable expenses the requesting party incurred in proving the matter or document. M.R.C.P. 37(c) states that the court “shall” make the order, unless it finds: that the request was objectionable under Rule 36(a); that the admission sought was of no substantial importance; that the party failing to admit had reasonable ground to believe he might prevail on the matter; or that there was other good reason for the failure to admit. Rhoda requested that Weathers admit to the genuineness and admissibility of medical bills and various prescription receipts. However, the authenticity of these documents and their admissibility into evidence at a civil trial were matters outside of Weathers’s knowledge, thereby making her denials of the requests appropriate and not subject to sanction. M.R.E. 803(6) provides that business records may be admitted at trial. However, for the records to be admissible, the rule requires that the custodian or “other qualified witness” testify to their authenticity. Otherwise, the document must be self-authenticating pursuant to M.R.E. 902(11). Had Rhoda attached proper attestation of the documents’ authenticity when he propounded his requests, then Weathers would have had no good reason to deny the documents’ genuineness and authenticity. However, in his request, Rhoda failed to attach to his medical bills any affidavits or other written declarations by the custodians of these bills, or any other qualified witnesses, attesting to their authenticity. In essence, Rhoda’s requests sought to contravene the Mississippi Rules of Evidence. As Weathers was neither the custodian of the documents nor a qualified witness, she did not have the requisite information to determine whether the bills were true, correct, and authentic copies of what they purported to be, nor did she have knowledge of how the bills were prepared. Weathers stated as much in her responses to the requests for admission. Under these facts, it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Rhoda’s motion for expenses. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
