Mississippi Litigation Review & Commentary

Comments on the Latest Developments in Mississippi Civil Litigation

Home > Mississippi Supreme Court > Supreme Court Strikes Damages Caps

Supreme Court Strikes Damages Caps

By Philip Thomas on August 1, 2012 Posted in Mississippi Supreme Court, Tort Reform

On Tuesday the Supreme Court struck the state’s damages caps on non-economic damages. Not the Mississippi Supreme Court, obviously. It was the Missouri Supreme Court striking that state’s caps.

John Day links the opinion on his blog.

In Mississippi, the Sears v. Learmonth case on the issue has been pending for so long that it’s been months since I’ve even heard a rumor about the case. The last rumor that the Court would issue the opinion after the election qualifying deadline in May was technically correct, but wrong.

Anderson

That John Day is a piece of work, to judge by his blog. Apparently the law and his contingency fee are in perfect accord.
randy

From the oral argument in Learmonth, I remember the Court questioning Peck about the specific language of statutes from other states. If I remember correctly, most states that upheld caps lack the language of trial by jury “shall remain inviolate.” States with the SRI language generally struck down the caps. Missouri apparently followed suit.
MS has the SRI language and several recent cases before the Court emphasize the Court’s reluctance to defer power to the legislature. However, what will happen in Learmonth is a crapshoot.
Philip

The only certaintly with Learmonth is that we will have to listen to people coming out of the wood work who will say they called it, whichever way the court goes. “I always knew the caps would be upheld (or struck).”
I can already hear it. Avoid all watering holes where lawyers congregate for at least a month after the decision if you don’t want to hear the “I told you so’s” who didn’t.
Anderson

Well, let me go on record here as saying I don’t know whether the caps will be upheld or not; now, anyone can catch me out if I pretend otherwise.
The way the Court’s been dodging issues lately, however, I wouldn’t be surprised to see them punt the 5th Circuit’s certified question back to ‘em.
Anderson

… As to the MO decision, our 1890 constitution says “The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate.”
Day quotes the MO constitution’s clause: “the right of trial by jury as heretofore enjoyed shall remain inviolate.”
Is that “as heretofore enjoyed” a material difference? Or is it surplusage, given the dictionary meaning of “inviolate”? I could argue either side of that.
Matt

I’ll share here the prediction I’ve been sharing with everyone else so y’all too can laugh at me when I get it wrong: They’re going to strike the caps. And I think they’re going to do it in the next month or so.
Franklin

As a general rule, and certainly recently, in a number of contexts on judicial vs. legislative issues the court jealously guards judicial power, striking perceived legislative encroachment. So, short answer–caps will be struck.