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

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

A Hinds County Circuit Court jury returned a $3.6 million verdict Friday in a premises liability case. Judge Winston Kidd was the trial judge.

The Plaintiffs were Benny Ohazurike, Esther Ohazurike, and Darlington Ohazurike (6 year old son). Plaintiff's counsel were Ashley Ogden and former Chief Justice Jim Smith.

The Defendants were Parham Pointe South (owner), Ballard Realty Company (management company), and K. Wayne Rice & Associates (owner). Defense counsel were: (1)     Jamie Travis with Page Kruger & Holland in Flowood (attorney for Parham Pointe South and K. Wayne Rice & Associates); and (2)  Benny “Mac” May with Dunbar Monroe in Ridgeland (attorney for Ballard Realty and Crystal Bridges-Corcoran).

Case Facts According to Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Benny Ohazurike is a creator and designer of board games.  In 2001 Benny and his wife Esther moved into Parham Apartments on Ridgewood Road.  Plaintiff’s apartment had a leaky roof and developed mold and mildew inside the apartment.  Plaintiffs asked management to fix the maintenance problems inside their apartment, including the leaky roof and the mold and mildew inside their apartment and to clean their carpet.  Management refused to perform any maintenance or repairs on their apartment. 

 In mid 2007 a pipe in the Plaintiffs’ bathroom began to leak.  For at least 6 weeks Benny begged the manager and the maintenance staff to fix the leak.  They told Benny they would fix the leak and never did.  In May 2007 Benny and Esther went to the grocery store.  When the family came back to their apartment they discovered the leaking pipe in the bathroom had burst and flooded the majority of the apartment.  Benny had been keeping blueprints for his board games on the floor in the apartment bedroom while he worked on them.  Benny also had blueprints and partial game designs stored in the closet.  The flooding from the burst pipe destroying 19 of Benny’s game designs and blueprints.

 Management did not stop the water spewing from the pipe until several hours after it was discovered and reported by the Plaintiff.  After the flood, management continuously refused to replace the carpet in the apartment, make any other repairs or move the family into a vacant apartment.  Because of the flood the carpet began to mildew and mold spread throughout the apartment.  Plaintiff’s 3 year old son, Darlington, developed a skin condition and a cough.  Benny and Esther also developed coughs and became ill from the mold.  Darlington’s skin is permanently dotted and scarred as a result of the skin condition he developed.  Plaintiffs sued Defendants alleging failure to provide maintenance and repairs both before and after the flood, their failure to clean the mold in their apartment, and failure to replace the mildewed carpet which caused their Plaintiffs’ illnesses.

 At trial several former employees of Parham testified that management and the owners intentionally ignored the Plaintiff’s requests for repairs and maintenance and threw away his maintenance requests.   The employees testified that Benny annoyed management because he asked for repairs and because he acted as an informal security guard and maintenance man and would constantly complain about the lack of maintenance on the property, the crime on the property, and employees not doing their jobs. 

There was testimony that management denied maintenance to the Plaintiffs in order to force them out and rent the apartment for a higher price.  There was testimony that certain members of management and maintenance would randomly turn off the air conditioner to the Plaintiffs’ apartment to force them to move.  One employee, a housekeeper, testified that management forced her to sign false criminal affidavits against Benny alleging that he had threatened her with a gun.  The employee testified that when she refused to go to court and pursue the false charges, management fired her.

The defendants’ witnesses who were all former managers and regional supervisors testified that the plaintiffs were several months behind on rent and that no flood occurred. The defendants testified that just because the rent was late they could not deny maintenance service to tenants. The defense argued that the value of the plaintiffs’ injuries was zero and that the plaintiffs’ damaged games had no value. The plaintiff countered by showing a pattern at the property of no one being able to determine who owed rent because of the problems with managers taking cash and money orders and not applying the rent to the correct tenants. The plaintiff also showed that while he had fallen behind on rent in the past he had always paid up making his rent current and paid.

The Verdict

The jury awarded the Plaintiffs the following amounts:

Benny -  $2,502,208.00, Ester- $500,253.00,  Darlington - $601,251.00.

The total amount awarded to the Plaintiffs was $3,603,712.00.

My Take

The damages verdict sounds really high for those injuries. It will be interesting to see what happens if the case goes up on appeal.

This is Ashley Ogden's sixth seven figure verdict reported on this blog in a little over a year. That is impressive by any measure and places Ogden at the top of the heap of Mississippi plaintiff lawyers. That stature tends to make people a target and it will be interesting to see how Ogden handles the attention.

This verdict will lead to more chatter that I have been hearing as Ogden compiled these verdicts. First, some Jackson lawyers believe that the senior litigation partners at many Jackson defense firms are afraid to try a case against Ogden in Hinds County. Their argument is that senior partners step in and try cases that they think that they will win, but let the lawyers who worked up the case try it when they think they will lose.  This is not my theory—but I've heard it several times. 

Second, this verdict will lead to more talk around town about the irony of Chief Justice Smith working for Ogden. The perception among lawyers on both sides was that the Supreme Court would not affirm a plaintiff's verdict when Smith was the Chief Justice. The fact that Smith went into a plaintiff practice after losing his election to Justice Kitchens is ironic. But it also suggests that the man who led the Court did not share the view that plaintiffs could not get—and keep—a verdict in Mississippi. It will be interesting to see what happens when the Supreme Court rules on the appeals of these cases that Smith worked on with Ogden. 

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

The entire Mississippi Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday before a mostly full courtroom in the Double Quick v. Lymas case. Here is the Clarion-Ledger's article on the hearing. The audience was not disappointed as the arguments were very interesting.  

Case Background

The case is a premises liability case out of Humphrey County involving the shooting of a patron by a third-person in the parking lot of a convenience store in Belzoni. There was a large jury verdict that the trial court reduced due to the legislative cap on non-economic damages. Both sides appealed. The defendant appealed on liability and the plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of the caps.

The Court Focused on Liability Issues

The justices appeared most interested in the liability arguments. Defense counsel John Henegan argued for thirty minutes and argued that the verdict should be reversed and rendered based on lack of foreseeability and proximate cause. Plaintiff counsel Joe Tatum then argued for thirty plus minutes and did not get to the cap issue until his time had technically expired. Henegan then argued caps for close to thirty minutes on rebuttal. It looked liked the lawyers were more eager to get into the caps than the justices.

It appeared that five or more justices were skeptical that the plaintiff established that the shooting was foreseeable or that any negligence by Double Quick proximately caused the shooting. For this reason, the case could be reversed and rendered without ever reaching the cap issue.

Justices Were Skeptical of Legislative Caps Arguments

On the issue of the caps, Justice Pierce pointed out that the plaintiff did not raise on appeal the argument that the caps violate the equal protection clause. It appeared that Justice Pierce thought that this was the best argument challenging the caps. Several justices appeared skeptical of the constitutionality of the caps in their questioning of counsel.

Henegan argued that not only are the caps constitutional, but that the legislature can eliminate the right to recover “these types of damages” entirely. I thought he lost the justices with that one. The justices quickly realized that if the legislature can abolish some types of damages, then it can abolish the right to recover all damages. And it did not look like they were buying it.

Henegan was steadfast on this argument, citing the workers' comp system and the fact that the legislature abolished hedonic damages as a separate category of damages. But it's my understanding that hedonic damages are recoverable, they are just within the other non-economic damages. In addition, Justice Pierce pointed out that the workers' comp system is different, since employees do not have to prove negligence in return for the limits on recovery.

In any event, the right to sue for damages in civil court is older than this country. If the right were abolished, people would revert to taking the law into their own hands. Violence and chaos would be common. The best thing about our civil justice system is that it provides an orderly mechanism for resolving disputes. Although the system is imperfect, it beats the hell out of the alternative.

Henegan argued that the right to recover can be eliminated by the state legislature. I think he is dead wrong.

One last point on this issue. I find it difficult to believe that companies that make money from selling liability insurance advocate a system where there can be no tort liability. Liability insurance carriers would be out of business. So while insurance companies like caps that limit exposure, they do not want to eliminate exposure. It would eliminate their business.   

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

There are reports of Ashley Ogden obtaining another large verdict in a premises case, this one in federal court in Jackson. Here is the Complaint in Durr v. MBS Construction.

The Plaintiff was shopping at the Target Store in Jackson in 2004 when a wall fell on her, causing severe injuries. MBS was performing construction work in the store. Target intervened in the case. I am not sure who the verdict was against, since the verdict has not yet been posted on Pacer. I believe that the filing part of Pacer is down for the weekend, so it will probably be filed Monday. There is also no Pre-Trial Order on Pacer, so information about the parties and issues at trial is scarce.

The Plaintiff had a back injury that required surgery and had approximately $180,000 in medicals.

Former Chief Justice Jim Smith and Wendy Yaun [correction: Yuan] tried the case with Ogden. Defense counsel were Greg Spyridon and other attorneys from his New Orleans firm and John Corlew of Jackson. Corlew filed his entry of appearance three days before trial, which I am sure limited his ability to have a meaningful influence on the outcome.

Judge Tom Lee was the trial judge.

I hope to have more on this verdict next week.

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

A Hinds County jury returned a $1 million verdict this week for a plaintiff who was beaten by a Wackenhut security guard in a McDonald’s restaurant located on Highway 80 in Jackson after a dispute with the manager over a cup of ice.

The plaintiff was allegedly a homeless man who was intoxicated at the time of the incident. He claimed to be a frequent customer of the McDonald’s. The plaintiff was arguing with the manager when the Wackenhut guard used force to remove plaintiff from the store. Plaintiff claimed to suffer a broken shoulder and other injuries.

The jury was shown a video of the attack. The Wackenhut guard shoved the plaintiff out the doors of the store, causing the plaintiff to fall and hit his head. The guard then followed the plaintiff out and stomped on the plaintiff, causing his shoulder to shatter. 

The defense argued that the use of force was justified and that plaintiff had a knife, but several witnesses testified that they did not see the plaintiff with a knife. 

The jury deliberated for 2 hours and 45 minutes and apportioned 75% of the fault to Wackenhut and its guard and 25% to McDonald's.

The entire verdict was for compensatory damages. The plaintiff did not request punitive damages.

Plaintiff’s counsel were Rocky Wilkins and Ashley Ogden of Jackson.

 Michael Wolf and Smith Boykin of the Page Kruger firm represented the Wackenhut guard. Matt Taylor of the Streetman firm represented Wackenhut. Jason Strong and Garner Berry of the Daniel Coker firm represented McDonald's.    

Judge Winston Kidd presided over the case.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A Hinds County jury awarded a total of $4 million to a Jackson couple who were assaulted and beaten in 2008 in their room at the In Town Suites on I-55 in North Jackson. The case was tried before Judge Tommie Green. Plaintiff's counsel was Ashley Ogden of Jackson. Defense counsel was Wade Manor and another attorney with Scott, Sullivan Streetman and Fox of Ridgeland. The jury awarded $2 million to each of the two plaintiffs.

I watched a good portion of this trial and there really was no defense. Someone severely beat the two Plaintiffs in their room at the hotel. The former hotel manager testified that he quit because he feared for his life after having a gun put to his head in an earlier robbery. The manager testified that he begged for security. The corporation that owned the hotel would not grant the manager's requests for armed security, stating that it was not in the hotel's budget. The manager testified that the hotel netted $700,000 in profit in 2007, which was the year before the assault. 

Several police officers testified that there was a major crime problem at the hotel that hotel ownership did not address. The defendant argued that lighting and peep holes in doors was security and that there were inconsistencies in the two plaintiffs' accounts of what happened. Defense counsel seemed to be suggesting that the plaintiffs knew their attackers and were doing something wrong. But the defendant put on no evidence to support this theory. Defendants can occasionally win cases with suspicion and innuendo rather than hard evidence, but it did not happen this week in Hinds County.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On Friday a Hinds County Circuit Court jury rendered a $2.5 million verdict for Linda Knox, a 62 year old woman who in 2007 was severely beaten in the parking lot of the Kroger Grocery Store on I-55 in northeast Jackson. Ms. Knox was hospitalized for two weeks following the attack and was permanently blinded in one eye. Her two attackers targeted older women in shopping center parking lots. Ms. Knox's attorneys were Rocky Wilkins and Ashley Ogden of Jackson. Kroger's attorney was Bill Luckett of Clarksdale.

Viewing the comments to the story on the Clarion-Ledger's website , there is sympathy for Kroger's defense, which the Ledger described as follows: 

But Luckett said there was no way Kroger could have prevented "crazy, drugged out thugs" from carrying out the attack.

Luckett said one of those charged in the crime said they had driven around the parking lot looking for a female to snatch her purse.

"Look at it as an unfortunate event that happened on Kroger's lot," Luckett said.

I'm going to argue the other side of the coin on this one. Businesses on the I-55 corridor in Jackson invite customers in and take their money, but never disclose that there is a history of crime activity in their parking lots. There are many purse snatchings and similar assaults in the parking lots of these businesses. Most do not make the news. Visit that Kroger and I promise you that you will never see a sign that says: "Warning! Crazy drugged out thugs beat up an old lady in the parking lot last week. Shop at your own risk." Businesses like Kroger should either disclose the crime history on their premises or provide protection for their customers.

To get a verdict in a premises liability case the plaintiff must prove that the defendant was on notice of a dangerous condition. Ms. Knox and her attorneys presumably met this burden. I doubt that Ms. Knox knew about the crime wave in the Kroger parking lot--most people do not. Kroger knows this and likes it that its customers do not know, otherwise they might drive out to the Wal Mart. The critics of this verdict would not give Kroger or another business their sympathy if they were attacked in the parking lot of a business with an undisclosed history of crime activity.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Clarion-Ledger reported Sunday that former Jackson mayor Dale Danks filed a wrongful death premises liability case in the Circuit Court of Hinds County. The plaintiff is suing the owners of a South Jackson apartment complex where the plaintiff's son lived and was killed by a robber with an assault rifle.

The Complaint does not identify the amount of damages sought. A strong premises liability case can result in a seven figure verdict or settlement.

Here is the story.