Wrongful Imprisonment

The Mississippi Supreme Court decided Tipton v. State located here.  This is an interesting case dealing with compensation for wrongfully convicted individuals under Mississippi Code Annotated 11-44-7.  The Supreme Court actually reversed a decision it had made earlier in the case and on rehearing determines that house arrest is imprisonment within the meaning of the statute allowing the individual to recover for time spent on house arrest also.  This is an interesting statute section to read through.  The statute does not seem to require proof of fault by the state and allows for a set amount of compensation for an individual along with the payment of attorney's fees by the state for bringing the claim. 

Meeting Deadlines

There are a number of litigation deadlines in cases.  The deadline to file a post trial motion is ten (10) days after entry of the judgment.  The deadline to file an appeal is thirty (30) days after entry of a judgment or thirty (30) days after entry of an order denying the motion for a new trial.  I am working on a case now where an opposing counsel keeps filing motions after missing both of these deadlines.  What many people do not realize is that those deadlines are actually jurisdictional.  Once the ten (10) days lapse, the trial court is deprived of jurisdiction to change the opinion absent a motion for Rule 60 relief which has very narrow applications.  Once the thirty (30) day deadline passes, the appellate court has no jurisdiction to modify the trial court judgment. 

Rules of the Road

Rules of the Road by Rick Friedman is a popular book among Plaintiff lawyers on proving liability in a case.  There are a lot of sources of rules in automobile accident cases including states statutes and local ordinances.  One easy source that is often overlooked is the Mississippi driver's handbook located here.  Using this, you can establish many of the rules that a defendant has broken with little effort.   

Termination of Alimony

Certain types of alimony may be terminated upon the payee cohabiting combined with the party they are living with providing support.  The case of McMinn v. McMinn  located here which was decided today illustrates the problems with proof in this area.  The key issue was that a relationship combined with sexual activity does not rise to the level of support to terminate alimony.  Absent some proof of the party they are living with providing monetary support, the alimony modification will be denied. 

Bystander Recovery

One interesting issue is whether a party can recover when they witness an accident and have emotional distress resulting from it.  This was the issue last week in Entergy v. Ace decided by the Mississippi Supreme Court located here.  The issue in the case concerned a bystander whose child  had been shocked by an Entergy power line but was not at the scene of the accident when it happened.  The mother claimed and apparently had expert testimony of emotional distress.  The trial court denied summary judgment but the Mississippi Supreme Court granted interlocutory appeal.  The Mississippi Supreme Court found that because the mother was not present when the accident happened and did not observe the accident, she could not recover as a matter of law.  There is a strong dissent by Justice Lamar joined by three other justices noting that with the mother arriving so quickly after the accident, she should be able to recover.  The language in the opinion appears to show that the matter was hotly debated among the justices with both the majority and the dissent taking shots at each other in the opinion. 

Insurance Coverage Exclusion

Many times insurance policies have various exclusions from liability.  Many times the theory of liability has to get around the exclusions.  However, the Mississippi Supreme Court had a case yesterday that considerably affirmed how narrow these theories can be in Gray v. Arch Specialty Insurance Co. located here.  The issue in the case was an individual's coverage for death resulting from medical malpractice.  There was a specific exclusion in the insurance coverage providing no coverage for losses resulting from medical malpractice.  The Plaintiff went on a theory of negligent training, negligent hiring, etc. related to the doctor.  The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the granting of summary judgment.  The Court stated that "Arch maintains that a plaintiff’s legal theory does not determine the applicability of exclusions; if an exclusion applies, then it applies to all theories of liability. We agree. The Court has held that, if the injury would not have resulted “but for” the excluded service, then the exclusion applies to all theories of liability.”. The English version of this is that if you have any theory of loss that was caused by medical malpractice, any theory of liability in that policy is covered by the exclusion. 

Accident Appeal of Interest

There is currently an interesting issue being considered on interlocutory appeal in the Mississippi Appellate Court's located here.  The question presented is whether it was proper for a trial court to consolidate two separate and distant car accidents the same plaintiff was in four (4) months apart where there is no way to tell which accident caused the Plaintiff's injuries?  Best I can tell each Defendant is pointing the finger at the other.  The Defendants have filed the petition for interlocutory appeal which is still pending.  From the Plaintiff's perspective, this prevents a verdict where a jury could find the unjoined defendant in each case liable.  There is a little bit of a gamble here by the Defendant to me.  What happens if the claims are severed and the jury in each case finds the named defendant in each case 100% liable?  Plaintiff could recover twice literally.  Arguably, any verdict from another case would be inadmissible too.  Sometimes, you have to be careful what you ask for on appeal because you might actually get it and end up in a worse position.