 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Alpha Gulf Coast12/13/2001
the same trier of fact to determine whether punitive damages may be considered.
(d) The court shall determine whether the issue of punitive damages may be submitted to the trier of fact; and, if so, the trier of fact shall determine whether to award punitive damages and in what amount... Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (Supp. 2001) (emphasis added).
The statute and case law specifically give the court the authority to initially determine whether the particular facts of a case merit the submission of the issue of punitive damages to the jury. Id. Miss Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (1)(d) (Supp. 2001). In Ross-King-Walker, Inc. v. Henson, this Court held the following:
In determining the propriety of submitting the issue of punitive damages to the jury, the trial court decides whether, under the totality of the circumstances and viewing the defendant's conduct in the aggregate, a reasonable, hypothetical trier of fact could find either malice or gross neglect/reckless disregard. Ross-King-Walker, Inc. v. Henson, 672 So.2d 1188, 1191 (Miss. 1996). See also Summers v. St. Andrew's Episcopal Sch. Inc., 759 So.2d 1203, 1215 (Miss. 2000); Wallace v. Thornton, 672 So.2d 724, 728 (Miss. 1996); Thomas v. Harrah's Vicksburg Corp., 734 So.2d 312, 322 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999).
Clearly, the trial court is the gatekeeper for the issue of whether punitive damages, in cases involving both intentional and non-intentional torts, should be submitted and considered by a jury.
. Punitive damages are assessed in extreme cases and are intended to be an example and warning to others. Wallace 672 So.2d at 728. "However, there is no right to an award of punitive damages and such damages are to be awarded only in extreme cases." South Central Bell v. Epps, 509 So.2d 886, 892 (Miss. 1987). This Court held that a plaintiff can recover punitive damages only if there is a demonstrated willful or malicious wrong or if there is gross, reckless disregard for the rights of others. Boling v. A-1 Detective & Patrol Serv., Inc., 659 So.2d 586, 588 (Miss. 1995).
. False imprisonment is considered an intentional tort. Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-35 (1995); City of Mound Bayou v. Johnson, 562 So.2d 1212, 1218 (Miss. 1990). In addition, the Court in Mound Bayou recognized that malicious prosecution has been placed in the category of intentional torts on several occasions. Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-35. This Court held that malicious prosecution is subject to the same statute of limitations as the enumerated torts in Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-35. 562 So.2d at 1219.
. The trial court ruling in the case sub judice did not allow the punitive damages to be submitted to the jury. The trial judge recognized, among other things, that Jackson stated that he did not use profanity or raise his voice and Sutton did not believe Jackson should be arrested. Notwithstanding the testimony, the trial court judge indicated that the evidence presented did not meet the clear and convincing evidence standard required by the punitive damages statute. This Court finds that the trial court, as the gatekeeper of whether the issue of punitive damages is to be submitted to the jury, correctly determined that the facts of the case do not support a hypothetical juror finding malice or reckless disregard for Jackson's rights. Accordingly, the trial court correctly determined that the jury instructions for punitive damages should not have been granted to Jackson.
3. The Trial Court erred in failing to allow the Plaintiff to introduce evidence of existence of a videotape of the blackjack table (surveillance daily log sheets) and in failing to grant Plaintiff's Jury Instruction P-5.
. Jackson co
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|