Miss. Dep't of Human Serv. V. S.W.
| Docket Number: | 2010-SA-01036-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-SA-01036-COA ; 2010-CT-01036-SCT ; 2010-CT-01036-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-29-2012 Opinion Author: Carlton, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Damages - Separate concurrent or successive negligent acts - Emotional distress - Medical documentation - Repeated injury Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving, P.J. and Russell, J. Concurs in Result Only: Fair, J., Concurs in Result Only Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-25-2010 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Winston Kidd Disposition: JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF FOR $500,000 Case Number: 251-01-123CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Mississippi Department of Human Services |
JAMES P. STREETMAN III
WADE G. MANOR
DAVID LEE GLADDEN JR.
JAMIE LEIGH HEARD |
||
| Appellee: | S.W. | J. BRAD PIGOTT CARLTON W. REEVES J. CLIFTON JOHNSON II |
|
|
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 - Damages - Separate concurrent or successive negligent acts - Emotional distress - Medical documentation - Repeated injury |
| Summary of the Facts: | S.W. filed a complaint against the Mississippi Department of Human Services seeking damages he suffered resulting from DHS’s negligence while he was placed in the legal custody of DHS as a minor. The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s finding of liability based upon the breach of ministerial, nondiscretionary governmental duties by DHS, and reversed and remanded the case for a new trial on damages. Upon remand, in lieu of a second trial, the parties allowed the circuit court to decide damages without submission of new evidence. DHS filed no motion in accordance with M.R.C.P. 52. The circuit court entered a $500,000 judgment in favor of S.W. DHS then filed a post-trial motion for reconsideration and amendment of judgment, requesting that the trial court reconsider S.W.’s entitlement to damages, which provided the court an opportunity to amend the judgment on that basis. However, DHS filed no motion seeking any additional findings of fact or conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52. The circuit court denied DHS’s post-trial motion to reconsider and amend the judgment. DHS appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | DHS argues that S.W. failed to produce evidence to support an award of damages. DHS further argues that if any damages are to be allowed, then S.W. is only entitled to nominal damages. DHS claims that since DHS employees were not the ones that sexually assaulted S.W., then no damages against DHS should be awarded. However, DHS’s argument fails to acknowledge the consequences of the negligence stemming from the affirmative duties breached by DHS to protect and care for S.W. while in their custody. Mississippi negligence law recognizes that separate concurrent or successive acts or omissions of negligence can combine to produce an indivisible harm. The argument raised by DHS also fails to address the special relationship and duties owed to S.W. as a ward placed in its custody. The liability of the State springs from the duty owed to protect the specific victim, S.W., placed in its legal custody, not merely from whether the State possessed a duty to supervise the worker. The record shows that S.W. provided substantial, credible evidence that DHS breached its duties to care for, to protect, and to supervise S.W. DHS breached these duties by inappropriately placing S.W. at CDU as a neglected and abused child; by doing so prior to receipt of a court order for custody or removal; and by failing to adequately supervise, protect, and care for him in accordance with DHS policies and regulations after leaving him in these facilities where he suffered repeated sexual abuse while in DHS custody. Therefore the question before the circuit judge was whether the separate concurrent or successive negligent acts, or negligent omissions of its duty to act, by DHS constituted a substantial factor in bringing about the harm to S.W. The fact that DHS failed to foresee the extent of harm or the manner of harm does not prevent liability for its negligence. In order to recover emotional distress damages resulting from ordinary negligence, S.W. must prove some sort of physical manifestation of injury or demonstrable harm, whether it be physical or mental, and that harm must have been reasonably foreseeable to the defendant. The record contains S.W.’s own testimony regarding the damages he suffered while in DHS custody. The record also shows medical documentation of manifestations of his mental injuries. The circuit judge’s award of damages is supported by substantial, credible evidence in the record as displayed by the following: S.W.’s own testimony; the individual therapy treatment at the Starkville facility for anxiety, anger, and depression; treatment by the psychiatrist with the Mississippi Neuropsychiatric Clinic describing manifestations of depression, anxiety, gender-identity confusion, anger, inability to trust others, and coping difficulties; Dr. Jones’s treatment for depression and anxiety; the overwhelming evidence of sexual abuse of S.W., negligent care, and inappropriate placement at CDU; the continued pursuit of S.W. by one of the perpetrators upon his release; and DHS’s failure to properly investigate the reported abuse or provide S.W. with much needed counseling and psychological services. DHS argues that if S.W. was in fact entitled to an award of damages, the amount of damages awarded by the circuit court was outrageous, speculative, grossly excessive, and in excess of the statutory cap. DHS asserts that S.W. did not establish that he suffered a separate injury valued at $50,000 for each of DHS’s breaches. Where wrongful conduct is repeated over a period of time, the wrongful conduct gives rise to a new cause of action each time it is repeated. The record shows S.W. suffered repeated injury from being sexually abused and from the lack of care and protection while placed in DHS’s custody. The record also shows DHS breached nondiscretionary, ministerial duties to protect and care for S.W. while he was in its custody, and S.W. was thereafter subjected to repeated acts of neglect, delinquency, misconduct, and sexual abuse. The breach by DHS of its ministerial duty to S.W., where an affirmative duty existed to protect and care for its ward, caused S.W. to be subjected to repeated sexual assaults and harm after each dereliction of duty by DHS. The circuit judge, as the factfinder, specified the separate breaches of ministerial duties, the occurrences here causing S.W. to suffer repeated damage due to the negligent conduct of DHS. The record reflects substantial support for the circuit court’s findings and award of damages. The award in this case by the circuit court is neither unreasonable nor outrageous and falls within the statutory caps. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
