Mississippi Litigation Review & Commentary : Mississippi Personal Injury Lawyer & Attorney : Phillip W. Thomas Law Firm : MS Litigation Review & Commentary

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Monday's post on discovery gamesmanship cases proved to be one of the most criticized posts in the history of this blog. 

On Tuesday Chancery Court Judge Larry Primeaux of Meridian gave his thoughts on how to handle discovery gamesmanship in this post on his blog.

The prevailing theme in Judge Primeaux's post is that lawyers let too much slide in discovery:

In my experience, most attorneys are too accommodating when it comes to discovery.  You don’t want to press too hard because “what goes around, comes around.”  You call the other attorney who promises the answers “in a few days,” and that stretches into a few weeks and months.  You hate to file a motion because you don’t want to be disagreeable.  The common thread is that these approaches are absolutely ineffective.

The entire post is worth reading and Judge Primeaux's blog is a great resource for chancery court practice issues.

Commentors to my Monday post thought I was overly critical of Judge Mills and too easy on the City of Jackson. The sense that I get from the comments is that emotions are running high within the bar on the issue of gamesmanship in discovery.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (10)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a glorious victory for wiener dogs everywhere, on Tuesday a unanimous Mississippi Court of Appeals reversed and rendered a $130,000 Clay County jury verdict for the victim of a near-miss wiener dog attack. Here is the Court's decision in Penny Pinchers v. Outlaw. I'm serious. That's the name of the case.

Facts:

Sophie was a 4 month old wiener dog.

I obtained an exclusive photo of a representative 4-month old wiener dog puppy, pictured to the right. Might as well of named her Killer.

Sophie's owner took her to work with her at Penny Pinchers. The rest is history. Outlaw—being afraid of dogs—ran for the back of the store upon entering and hearing Sophie bark. Outlaw could hear Sophie's claws on the floor and, I presume, her jaws snapping.

When Outlaw saw it was little Sophie, she laughed and resumed shopping. Large quantities of catfish and sugar were on her list. But Outlaw was soon hysterical with pain in her bum hip. An ambulance was dispatched. The lawsuit followed.

Trial:

A Clay County jury apportioned 70% of fault to Penny Pinchers and 30% to Outlaw and awarded $130,000 in damages.

The Appeal:

The Court of Appeals reversed and rendered based on the finding that there was no dangerous condition.

Judge Kenny Griffis wrote the pack's majority's opinion. Wayne Williams of Tupelo represented the defendant. Rod Richmond and Chynee Bailey represented the Plaintiff.

My Take:

This will go down in history as a landmark verdict….for wiener dogs. There are some real troublemakers in the wiener dog breed. The Court's opinion gives them a license to chase customers around stores throughout Mississippi with impunity. But in a state where most of the population is armed, this could still end badly for the wiener dogs.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Governor Haley Barbour pulled out of the 2012 presidential race on Monday. Technically, Barbour withdrew before entering the race. The reality is that he has been running since the Fall and is the first serious candidate to withdraw from the race.

There is little speculation in the Mississippi papers as to why Barbour withdrew. That clears the deck for a wing-nut legal blogger to speculate away. From the outfield seats, here's why it looks like Barbour pulled out.

1. Barbour's campaign was not getting any traction.

An article in today's Wall Street Journal made this point:

Richard Quinn, a South Carolina political strategist advising the political action committee of former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, another possible entrant to the race, said Mr. Barbour's was struggling in the state, and that his decision underscores Republican voters' dissatisfaction with the current crop of candidates.

Mr. Barbour has spent weeks meeting voters in New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina. But his would-be candidacy was not getting any lift in the polls. Hewas seventh in a poll of likely GOP voters in South Carolina released Monday by American Research Group, with support from 2% of those polled.

Without support in a southern state such as South Carolina, there appeared to be no road to the nomination for Mr. Barbour, who would have been pitted against Midwesterners such as former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann in Iowa and against Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, in neighboring New Hampshire.

    2.    Health Issues.

Barbour is 63 years old and had back surgery last week. It's possible that he did not believe that he was physically up to campaigning for the next 18 months. There is no shame there if that is the case. I don't see how presidential candidates do it. And John McCain is an exception. McCain is a former POW who could probably eat nails. Barbour is a mere mortal like the rest of us.

    3.     Obama Will Probably Win Re-election.

The question of whether President Obama will win re-election is a fluid issue. Last Fall I would have said no. Now, it looks like he will win re-election. Does Haley Barbour really want to campaign for 18 months to suffer a Bob Dole-like loss? Probably not.

   4.     The Nut-job Factor.

There is a nut-job factor in the Republican nomination process that I believe works against Haley Barbour. Speculation in the national media is that Republicans who want to get the nomination will have to pander to the large base of nut-job Republicans. Like the birthers. To his credit, I can't see Governor Barbour going on TV and trying to look as dumb as possible on some issues so he will play better with the nut-job crowd.

Conclusion

I am a little sad that it's already over for Mississippi's first serious presidential candidate. Who knows when we will have anyone else who is even in the discussion.

Barbour is a force who is respected by allies and opponents alike. As one person once told me: “I may not like what Haley Barbour tells me he is going to do, but at least he is not going to say one thing to my face and then go do the opposite.”

It will be very interesting to see what Governor Barbour does when his term expires in January. No doubt he will be on the campaign trail in 2012 beating the drum for Republican candidates and accumulating IOU's.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (9)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Friday I discussed the Miss. Court of Appeals' affirmance of a default judgment against the City of Jackson for not producing a document in discovery. Over the weekend I compared the Court's decision to the Mississippi Supreme Court's 2007 opinion in the Ford Motor Co. v. Tennin case and Judge Mills' 2010 decisions in the Northern District case involving Harrah's Casino's discovery abuses. I discussed the Harrah's case here and here.

  Here is a chart that compares the cases:

It appears that the City of Jackson case had the least bad conduct and the harshest sanctions. Harrah's conduct was clearly the worst. It looks sort of like the City got the death penalty for shop-lifting and Harrah's got probation for murder. Granted some people say that if you read between the lines Harrah's got hammered. My response is that you shouldn't have to read between the lines to see that Harrah's got hammered for what it did.  

We've got a big problem in Mississippi with gamesmanship in discovery. Many lawyers believe that the main part of their job is to conceal relevant evidence. And for the most part, courts aren't doing anything to address the problem. The problem is likely worse elsewhere based on my experiences with out-of-state lawyers.

Here's an example. In many cases the opposing side objects to 80% plus of written discovery requests. What this means is that you have no idea if you are getting complete responses.

 I would like to see courts do something to try to prevent this gamesmanship instead of making inconsistent rulings in cases where discovery disputes blow up. There should be model interrogatories and requests for production that are per se non-objectionable. If a party does object to one of the model instructions, it must be a specific objection supported by an affidavit.

Judges also need to understand that under the rules of civil procedure the burden is on the party resisting discovery. Many judges get it backwards.

A few years ago I was involved in a case with a discovery dispute where Magistrate Judge Jerry Davis presided over discovery. The opposing side objected to 90% of our discovery and claimed the sky would fall if they had to produce the documents that we requested. We had a hearing and Judge Davis told the other side that he always hears that the sky is falling, but it never does. He struck their objections and ordered production of everything we asked for.

The opposing party produced the documents, which were very helpful to our case. This led to the settlement of the case. Unfortunately, many judges are afraid to take the stance that Judge Davis did in that case. But if they did, there would be much less gamesmanship in discovery. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Tuesday the Mississippi Court of Appeals issued a controversial decision in City of Jackson v. Rhaly. Here is the Court's opinion.

Facts:

The case was a lawsuit against the City for flood damages after a creek overflowed because it was not properly maintained. In interrogatory responses the plaintiffs requested any standard operating procedures which govern the site of the incident. The City's response was: none and that the City would supplement on receipt of further information. Sometime later, the City supplemented the response to identify a procedure without producing it. A week before the trial the plaintiff found the procedure in the clerk's office while researching another case.

This all happened back in the early 2000's before the current City Attorney or anyone working in his office worked in the office.

The plaintiff moved for a default judgment for discovery abuses and Hinds County Circuit Judge Swan Yerger granted the motion. Judge Yerger determined that the City's actions were not willful and wacked them anyway due to their neglect. He awarded $149,872 in damages, $31,226 in attorney's fees and $3,862 in expenses.

Court of Appeals Decision:

Judge Ishee wrote the Court's 5–3 opinion. The Court cited the following factors to consider when determine whether a dismissal was justified. My commentary is in brackets:

1. the failure to comply with the court's order resulted from willfulness or bad faith; [factor clearly not met: there was no order and trial court found it was not willful];
2. the deterrent value of Rule 37 cannot be substantially achieved through a less severe sanction; [factor not present];
3. whether the other party's preparation for trial was substantially prejudiced; [nothing in opinion suggested this factor was present; court of appeals said maybe-but decided that this factor does not have to be present]
4. dismissal may be inappropriate when neglect caused by lawyer rather than client; [pretty obvious that it was the fault of the lawyers in prior administration].

The Court discussed these factors and determined that dismissal was appropriate.

Pieter Teeuwissen and Claire Hawkins represented the City. William Joseph Kerley and John Clark represented the plaintiffs.

Judge Irving dissented joined by Judges Griffis and Maxwell.

My Take:

Judge Yerger had a reputations as perhaps the most defense leaning trial judge in the state. Except when the City of Jackson was a defendant.

I was shocked by this decision. Early indications are that I was not alone in Jackson legal circles. These are not the facts where I would  expect to see a default judgment granted for discovery abuses. In fact, I wouldn't even expect to see a motion filed.

There was no order violated and the plaintiff obtained the documents before trial. Also, the plaintiff did not articulate any real prejudice or move for a continuance. The fact that the plaintiff could have used the documents in depositions and “so forth” could have been handled by a continuance and more depositions at the City's expense.

Parties producing documents shortly before a trial is not uncommon. Sometimes this appears to be gamesmanship. Other times, not. Most of the time, the attorney on the receiving end complains to the Court, but rarely is anything done. Honestly, I didn't know that a default judgment was even possible for what happened here. I'm not condoning it. And I think that attorneys are getting more and more lax in responding to discovery and supplementing their responses. But I am very surprised by the result.

I will probably have more analysis of this opinion in a future post.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last month in this post I quoted an email from a "Tatworth Electronics" that appeared to be a lawyer email scam. Since that post there have been a lot of visitors to this site from people who found the site through a google search for "Tatworth Electronics."

For people researching Tatworth I encourage you to do the following:

1. go to google maps;
2. insert Tatworth's address: 29 Pine Dr., Great Neck, New York.
3. go to the street view.

What did you see? The offices of an international security company? Or the end of a cul-de-sac in a residential neighborhood?  

Don't be a sucker.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Friday a Yazoo County Circuit Court jury rendered a $1.165 million verdict in Winstead v. Simmons, et al. On Monday the jury returned a punitive damages verdict for another $100,000. The punitive verdict will allow the plaintiff to recover attorney's fees.

Plaintiff alleged that he was the victim of a corporate freeze out in a catfish farming operation. Plaintiff also asserted claims for fraud and defamation. Ray Winstead was the plaintiff. The defendants were Harry Simmons and Chat Phillips.

The trial lasted two weeks with Judge Janie Lewis presiding. Dorsey Carson and John Lassiter with Burr Forman in Jackson represented the plaintiff. John Donaldson and Jay Barbour of Yazoo City represented the defendants.

My Take:

This sounds like a big win for the plaintiff. Cases involving shareholder disputes can be interesting and involve a lot of money.

An often over-looked facet of a punitive damages claim is the fact that a punitive verdict allows the plaintiff to recover attorney's fees. The attorney's fees for a two week trial of a shareholder dispute case with regional law firm lawyers are going to be well into six figures.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As mentioned in yesterday's post, Mississippi federal Southern District Judge Dan Russell of Gulfport died on Saturday at the age of 98. Here is Judge Russell's obituary in the Clarion-Ledger.  I read somewhere that he wrote it himself.

I did not know Judge Russell. But by all accounts from Gulfport residents who did know him, he was a real character.

And how he lived through interesting times. Russell was born in 1913 and grew up in Mississippi at a time when the state still felt the consequences of the destruction of the Civil War. He saw the Great Depression, World War I and II (where he served in the Navy), the Civil Rights Movement, man's progression from early flight to space travel, incredible progressions in technology, Hurricanes Camille and Katrina and the transformation of the Mississippi Gulf Coast from a sleepy little coastal area to a strip mall infested home of the casino industry.

Judge Russell was appointed to the federal bench in 1965 by President Lyndon Johnson. To put this in perspective, this was the year after the recently sworn-in Judge Carlton Reeves was born.

My cursory search on Lexis found opinions that Judge Russell wrote in 2007. So it appears that he was an active judge for over 40 years even though he was over 50 years old when appointed to the bench. That is an impressive record of public service that will be tough for anyone to match. 

Both the federal courthouse in Gulfport and the street in from of the courthouse bear is name.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Friday Mississippi's federal judiciary celebrated the appointment of District Judge Carlton Reeves with his investiture at Jackson State University. The vast majority of the Mississippi federal judiciary attended the event, which was marked by several moving speeches about the Yazoo City native's accomplishment of becoming a federal judge.

Judge Reeves' former law partner Cliff Johnson served as the Master of Ceremonies “Special Master” of the the proceeding. Former Southern District U.S. Attorney Brad Pigott gave what, to me, was the best speech of the event. Pigott—who worked with Reeves for many years at the U.S. Attorney's office and in private practice—noted that Reeves was born in 1964 when white supremacy still ruled in Mississippi. Today, it is hard to imagine how big a disadvantage it was to be born African-American in Mississippi in 1964. Mississippi has come a long way in the last forty-seven years and Carlton Reeves is as good of an example of that as there is.

An emotional Judge Reeves told a humorous and moving account of the first time he entered a law office when he was a teenager. It was the Barbour Law Firm in Yazoo City. Reeves was there to help his mother clean the offices. While his mother cleaned, Reeves played with, and then broke, the copy machine. On Friday, Senior Judge William Barbour, Jr., formerly of the Barbour Law Firm in Yazoo City, administered the oath to Judge Reeves. That may sound like a Hollywood movie, but it's true.

Following the administration of oath and presentation of robe, Judge Reeves took his seat next to Judge Sul Ozerden. Judge Ozerden's investiture several years ago was marked by his moving account of his father's immigration to the U.S. from Turkey with a plane ticket, one suitcase and very little money. I doubt that anyone who personally knew Reeves or Ozerden as they grew up is surprised by their achievements. The story is not that they had the talent to become federal judges, but that they could. Fifty years ago Reeves would have been prevented by his skin color; Ozerden by the fact that his father was not sufficiently 'good ole boy' to have a son rise that far, that fast.  

Perhaps people who think that things used to be better 'back in the day' are wrong. Today, the phrase that “all men are created equal” is more true in this country than it has ever been.

Sadly, Friday's celebration was followed by the death on Saturday of Senior U.S. District Judge Dan Russell, Jr. of of Gulfport. At Judge Reeves' investiture, Southern District Chief Judge Louis Guirola spoke of talking to Judge Russell the prior day and conveyed Russell's wishes of Godspeed to Judge Reeves. Judge Guirola spoke highly of Judge Russell with emotion in his voice. I will reflect more on Judge Russell's passing in a post on Tuesday.          

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Being a judge has one thing in common with legal blogging: you can't always make everyone happy. But despite the fact that every time judges rule they are ruling against one side or the other, some judges are more popular than others.  Why is that?

I think that the main factor that determines a judge's popularity among lawyers is effort.

Sure there are some lawyers who like every judge they've won a case before and hate every judge where they've lost. But lawyers with a clue don't view things that way. Thinking lawyers focus more on the judge's effort in deciding whether the judge is a good judge.   

Judges complain about poor effort from lawyers: not being prepared; not meeting deadlines; not knowing the case; not proof reading and spending enough time on briefs. The same can be applied to lawyers' criticisms of judges: not being prepared; not knowing the case; not reading the briefs; not explaining decisions; and not ruling in a timely manner.

Just as judges want to see effort from the lawyers, lawyers want to see effort from the judges.

Regardless of what you think about the decisions coming down from the Mississippi Supreme Court, you are likely to improve your perception of the institution and the sitting justices by seeing the Court in action. Watch an oral argument at the Court in person or from your desk by web cast. You will see justices who have done their homework and know the record.

Sometimes it appears that the whole reason for the oral argument is so the Court can ask where in the record something is. But if they are asking this question, it's usually not in the record. Justices will shut down lawyer's efforts to educate them on what the case is about—-they already know that. Seeing justices who have done their homework makes you feel better about the process, even when you lose or disagree with a particular decision.

Sometimes you see that kind of effort from trial court judges; sometimes not. Judges who are consistently in the “not” category are unpopular among lawyers. It's a lot easier for lawyers to stomach a perceived incorrect ruling when the judge clearly knows the case and provides a reasonable basis for the ruling. It's hard to take personal an adverse ruling under those circumstances. Even when lawyers think that type of judge got the ruling wrong they are likely to complement the judge's effort when talking about it with other lawyers.

There are also judges who are unpopular because it appears that they have an axe to grind. But I know of only a handful of judges in the state who are in this category. Lack of effort is a more prevalent trait of unpopular judges.

Granted, some judges don't care what lawyers think about their work. They do it their way and if anyone doesn't want to say the pledge of allegiance like it, then its the lawyer's problem. Guess which column of the effort category judges with this type of attitude are almost always in?       

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There are reports of a $1 million verdict last week in Hinds County Circuit Court in a trial before Judge Winston Kidd. The facts of the case were that an elderly woman on kidney dialysis died as a result of a contaminated catheter left in place by a nephrologist. The woman developed sepsis and died as a result.

According to my report, during closing argument the defense argued that even if they were negligent the damages were $0. The defense's argument on this point was that the decedent received income of $489 per month in social security benefits. After the subtraction of rent, food, medication and other expenses the decedent was left with no money at the end of the month. Therefore, the defense argued that the decedent's damages were $0.

Incidentally, if that argument is true then there are a lot of lawyers in Jackson living paycheck to paycheck whose lives aren't worth anything either.

Plaintiff's counsel was the cagey veteran trial lawyer Isaac Byrd of North (not to be confused with South or Mid) North Congress Street in Jackson. In response to the defense's damages argument, Byrd argued that it was insulting to the family that people pay $1 million for race horses and paintings, but the defendants thought this family's mother was worth nothing. If I am not mistaken, famed trial lawyer Moe Levine was using this argument at least 50 years ago. The defense's closing gave Byrd the opportunity to use the argument to maximum effect and he took advantage of it.

Defense counsel was Diane Pradat of the Wilkins Tipton firm in Jackson.

I will report more on this verdict if I obtain more information.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last year I discussed the Court of Appeals decision in Denham v. Holmes in this post. The Court of appeals reversed a Lafayette County defense verdict due to issues related to Daubert, defense counsel's closing arguments and jury instructions. On Thursday the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals in this opinion. But the Court disagreed with much of the Court of Appeals opinion.

As a refresher:

The case involved a car wreck on University Avenue in Oxford. Denham was turning onto the avenue and collided with a pickup truck driven by Holmes. Both vehicles were totaled and the plaintiffs suffered injuries.

The Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals that it was reversible error for the trial court to allow defense counsel to comment in closing on the plaintiff's lack of expert testimony. Plaintiff's counsel referred to the expected testimony in opening, but the trial court did not allow the expert to testify. The Court determined that the comments were proper. The Court reasoned that:

“acting at their own peril, the plaintiffs invited this comment by informing the jury during opening statement that they would provide expert testimony during trial but failing to do so.”

The Court noted:

“The reality of our advocacy system is that the purpose of a party's presentation of evidence and the comments of that party's counsel, throughout the trial, is to aid that party's case, and to 'prejudice' (be detrimental to) the other party's case.” 

The Court reasoned that just because an argument hurts the other side's case does not mean that the argument is improper. Although the Court did not mention Rule of Evidence 403, I could see this language being cited in disputes involving that rule.

The Court also disagreed with the Court of Appeals' Daubert analysis. The Court agreed that the trial court should have allowed the plaintiff's accident reconstructionist to testify about his distance and timing estimates. But the Court disagreed that the expert should have been allowed to testify about causation because the opinions were not sufficiently reliable.

  Justice Carlson wrote the majority opinion. Justice Kitchens dissented on the Daubert issues and was joined by Justices Dickinson and Randolph.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Clarion-Ledger reported on Friday's guilty verdict in federal court in Jackson of 54–year old Cassandra Faye Thomas. The Jackson doctor was accused of orchestrating a fraudulent scheme to defraud Medicare and Medicaid of $6.9 million. The doctor was convicted of bilking the system through unlawful claims for therapy services.  The verdict brings attention to a massive problem that costs U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars every year.

Here is an 2009 overview of healthcare fraud by Sara Rosenbaum, Nancy Lopez and Scott Stifler of the George Washington University Medical Center. Some of the findings include:

• estimates of healthcare fraud range from over $68  to over $200 billion annually;
• 3–10% of healthcare spending is on fraudulent claims;
• 80% of healthcare fraud is committed by healthcare providers; and
• victims tend to be low income and elderly persons.

 Entire businesses are set up to game the system. For instance, many nursing home operations reap huge profits from billing Medicare for therapy services during a nursing home resident's first 100 days in a facility. In a crooked nursing home operation every Medicare resident will receive physical therapy, occupational therapy and speech therapy during their first 100 days in the facility—whether they need it or not. The nursing home bills Medicare for each of these services.

The same nursing homes stop providing therapy as the resident reaches their 100th day in the facility, since Medicaid does not pay for individual services and many residents go to Medicaid as their pay-source after 100 days. Some residents get therapy even though they don't need it. That results in Medicare fraud.

Equally bad is these nursing homes' system of not providing therapy to Medicaid residents. Many residents who would benefit from therapy do not receive it because they are not on Medicare and have no pay source other than Medicaid.

As the prosecution of Dr. Thomas shows, the federal government does what it can to stop healthcare fraud. But more needs to be done. This is particularly true since Medicare spending is projected to substantially increase in the coming years. Fraudulent claims are fat in the system that can and needs to be cut, saving taxpayers billions.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I obtained more information on Tuesday's million dollar plus verdict in federal court in Gulf port in an 18-wheeler case. According to my reports the plaintiff claimed $155,000 in medical expenses. That means that the jury awarded less than the actual bills in medical expenses. The medicals included $50,000 for a surgery for a blood clot caused by a bad needle stick.

Plaintiff claimed lost wages of $2.1 million. Defendants' economist said the number was $579,000. The parties disagreed on plaintiff's work life expectancy. They compromised this disagreement by agreeing to reduce the lost earnings verdict by 26%. That is why the judgment is smaller than the verdict minus the 1% apportionment. 

Defendants hoped for a higher fault apportionment to the unknown driver who caused plaintiff's driver to slam on the brakes. The jury rejected the argument and found that the 18-wheeler should have stayed far enough behind the car to avoid the accident. 

The jury was all white and very conservative.

I do not know what the defendants were hoping to keep the verdict to. But based on this information, my estimate is that they wanted to keep it under $500,000. A grand slam home run for the plaintiff would have been a verdict over $2.5 million. Of course, that size verdict is real hard to get in that conservative of a venue. 

All in all it looks like a victory for the plaintiff. As is often the case in clear liability auto collision cases, the verdict was well between the two sides' positions.    

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Tuesday a federal court jury in Gulfport returned a verdict of $1,132,491 in a case involving an 18–wheeler rear-end collision on I-10 in Harrison County. Here is the verdict form, which awarded the following damages:

•  medical expenses: $132,491.50
• lost earnings: $850,000
• non-economic damages: $150,000.

The jury assigned 1% fault to an unknown driver. As a result, judgment was entered against the defendants for $902,376.59. Here is the judgment.

Here is the original complaint filed in state court. The case was removed to federal court.

Kasie Braswell of Mobile represented the plaintiff. Benny 'Mac' May of Dunbar Monroe in Ridgeland represented the defendants. Judge Louis Guirola was the trial judge. 

My Take:

I can't tell who won. The defendant presumably did not admit liability based on the apportionment part of the verdict form. So plaintiff getting a verdict against the defendant was a win for the plaintiff.

But the amount of the verdict seems small for this case. The plaintiff had economic damages of almost $1 million. The jury's award of $150,000 in non-economic damages was a victory for the defense. Once you factor in attorney's fees, the plaintiff would not be made whole by this verdict even if she had no non-economic damages. But with $132,000 in medicals, the plaintiff probably had substantial pain and suffering. So both sides can find something to like about this verdict.     

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the wake of yesterday's post about scaffolding going up at the Gartin Justice Building, which is home to the Mississippi Supreme Court, several people emailed with the story. Apparently, the scaffolding is related to pressure washing the building in anticipation for an upcoming dedication where U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia will appear.

The fact that it's turkey season in Mississippi and Justice Scalia likes to hunt is, by all accounts, not a coincidence. That the dedication is happening several years after the judiciary moved into the building is a bit odd. But I presume that is because the overall project was not completed until…..well I'm not sure when.

In any event, the prospects of Justice Scalia pairing a hunting trip with an appearance at the dedication reminds me of the MASH episode where the 4077 prepares for General MacArthur to visit. As the General's car speeds through town, the only thing that the busy General sees is Klinger dressed as the Statue of Liberty.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to 30 seconds of extensive internet research, it took 30 years to build an Egyptian pyramid. 

 The Mississippi Supreme Court building is on that kind of pace. That, or it's cursed.

Here are a couple of blackberry quality photos of scaffolding going up at the Court late last week:

My office has been half a block North of the Court for 9 years. There has been construction going on for all 9 years. I don't think that I can remember everything that they've done. They built the new building behind the dump that was the old Supreme Court building. Decorum prohibits me from stating what the old building looked like.

Then…they didn't move in for years. I heard that there weren't funds budgeted to finish the inside of the building. After a few years, they finished the inside of the building and the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and supporting cast moved in. Then they tore down the the old building.  Then the sprinklers went off in the new building and it flooded. Back came the construction crews.

Next, they tore down the old parking garage. The old garage complex made the old building look like a palace. Recently, they finished the grass lawn East of the Court building. That opened everything up between North Congress and the Capital. It looks great.

For months I've been driving down George Street and hoping to not see construction workers in the area. And now this. Scaffolding going up. Apparently, the only job in Mississippi more secure than an Article III judge is a position on the Supreme Court construction crew.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There was a buzz of excitement Thursday afternoon in the Law Offices of Bill M. Lott in Jackson. The former general practitioner is transforming his practice into a boutique firm that specializes in the representation of foreign companies in Mississippi. “Apparently, these companies have a lot of legal needs in my jurisdiction,” Lott said on Thursday, “including collecting debts that are owed by companies in Mississippi.” “Plus, I've always wanted to work in a 'boutique', it sounds cool.”

Lott denied that it feels odd to represent foreign companies that no one has ever heard of against locally owned companies. “To be honest, I've never heard of the Mississippi companies involved either” Lott said. “Plus, the money is too good to pass up.” Lott added, “look, there is obviously a need for this in Mississippi, I get emails from these companies all the time. They sound desperate to find an attorney.” 

“So far, all I've had to do is write a few letters and the company agrees to pay my client,” Lott said. “I get the money, deposit in my account, deduct my fee, and cut a check to my client for the rest.” “It's very fair.”

Long range, Lott sees himself developing a huge book of business and merging with a large law firm. “Those big firms who wouldn't talk to me coming out of law school will be sucking up to me when I get this book of business” Lott predicted. “I've already heard that Bradley Arant has a lawyer in Nashville who handles this kind of work, so that firm would be a good fit,” Lott stated.

“I could see myself as a big firm guy” Lott explained, “I would like to get on some committees and help run the firm.” “I want to be on the recruiting committee, the break room supplies committee, the tax library sub-committee and the committee on committees.” Lott said. “It's always been a dream of mine to chair a committee on committees. What could be a better way of spending an afternoon than holed up in a conference room with a bunch of lawyers formulating ideas for new firm committees?”

I'll try to report back on Lott's practice in the future to let my readers know how he's doing.