On Thursday the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed two jury verdicts.

The first was Young v. Guild, which was a medical malpractice case against a psychiatrist. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent in failing to prevent the suicide of one of his patients. In 2004 a jury in the Circuit Court of Yazoo County rendered a defense verdict at the end of a three day trial. Defense counsel was Whit Johnson and plaintiff’s counsel was Ronald Kirk. The Court affirmed the judgment with Justice Chandler authoring the majority opinion joined by Justices Carlson, Randolph, Kitchens and Pierce. Justice Graves concurred in the result only and Justice Lamar dissented in an opinion joined by Justice Dickinson.

The appeal issues involved jury instructions, apportionment and the admission of evidence. The Court found that the plaintiff waived apportionment by not raising it in an interrogatory response, that the jury instructions were proper and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the evidentiary rulings. The dissent argued that the trial court’s jury instructions did not properly set forth plaintiff’s theory of the case. It’s pretty rare for me to believe that jury instructions materially altered the outcome of a trial, so I am putting this case in the category of “move along folks, there’s not much to see here.” It looks like the defendant won fair and square.

The second case was Horseshoe Casino v. Mitchell, which was a casino slip and fall case that resulted in a January 2008 jury verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $56,000 in the Circuit Court of Tunica County. Unaccustomed to losing, the casino appealed. To me, if you are going to appeal a $56,000 jury verdict you should be real sure that there was error, since the attorney’s fees and expenses in connection with the appeal will be significant. There is a reason that appeals courts aren’t deciding many appeals from county court.

The main issue on appeal was whether the trial court properly excluded evidence of a collateral source. The Court found that there is a narrow impeachment exception to the collateral source rule, but the trial court correctly did not apply the exception in this case. Justice Randolph wrote the Court’s majority opinion. Justice Dickinson wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Kitchens wrote a dissent joined by Justice Waller that argued that there should be no exceptions to the collateral source rule. The main take away from this case is that unlike on the casino floor, the casino can actually lose at the courthouse.