Harvey v. Stone County Sch. Dist.
Docket Number: | 2002-CA-01777-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CA-01777-COA |
|
Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-14-2003 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Dismissal of action - Discovery violation - M.R.C.P. 37(b)(2)(C) - M.R.C.P. 41(b) Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers and Chandler, JJ. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-24-2002 Appealed from: Stone County Circuit Court Judge: Stephen Simpson Disposition: PLAINTIFF'S CASE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Case Number: 2001-0060 |
Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
Appellant: | Bonnie Harvey |
PRO SE |
||
Appellee: | Stone County School District | WALTER WILLIAM DUKES TRACE D. MCRANEY |
|
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 - Dismissal of action - Discovery violation - M.R.C.P. 37(b)(2)(C) - M.R.C.P. 41(b) |
Summary of the Facts: | Bonnie Harvey was injured during cheerleading practice, while at school. Alicia and Vic Harvey, as Harvey’s legal guardians, filed a complaint against the Stone County School District alleging negligence and requesting damages. The District filed a motion to dismiss which the court granted. Harvey appeals. |
Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Harvey argues that the court erred in dismissing her claims under Rules 37 and 41 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. Rules 37(b)(2)(C) and 41(b) provide that a court may enter an order dismissing the action when a party refuses to comply with an order compelling discovery. However, the court should dismiss a cause of action for failure to comply with discovery only under the most extreme circumstances. The court’s dismissal occurred while Harvey was representing herself. There is no allegation that Harvey lied or committed any willful violation of the discovery rules. When the court entered the order dismissing the case, Harvey had attempted to comply with the order and had produced discovery. Harvey was arguably one day late in filing discovery responses. Being one day late in service of discovery responses cannot be deemed a sufficient violation of the Rules to warrant dismissal with prejudice. Additionally, the court failed to consider alternative sanctions and failed to even consider that Harvey had attempted to comply with the court’s order by providing answers to interrogatories and by producing documents. Therefore, the court’s ruling was an abuse of discretion. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court