 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Cook12/5/2002
aud." Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(1)(a)(2002)
. There are several factors we have discussed in Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Estate of Wesson, 517 So. 2d 521, 532 (Miss. 1987) which are general factors to consider in awarding punitive damages. Those include the following: (1) an amount necessary to deter defendant from such wrongdoing in the future; (2) an amount to make an example of the defendant; (3) and the financial worth of the defendant. Id. See also MIC Life Ins. Co. v. Hicks, 825 So. 2d 616 (Miss. 2002).
. In Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U.S. 424, 121 S.Ct. 1678, 149 L.Ed 2d 674 (2001), the United States Supreme Court determined that the jury's award of punitive damages is not a finding of fact, but rather is expression of moral condemnation, and thus de novo review of that award is consistent with due process and does not impair the prevailing party's right to a jury trial. Cooper also affirmed the three factors discussed in Mutual Life. 532 U.S. at 424.
. Where there is a legitimate or arguable basis in the delay or denial of payments, there is no valid claim for punitive damages. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Estate of Wesson, 517 So. 2d at 527. The jury found in this case that there was no legitimate or arguable basis for MP&L;to deny Cook's workers' compensation claim. Therefore, in the arena of the intentional tort of bad faith refusal to pay workers' compensation, punitive damages would be appropriate in the present case. However, in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 116 S.Ct. 1589, 134 L.Ed 2d 809, 1599 (1996), the Court stated, " erhaps the most important indicium of the reasonableness of a punitive damages award is the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct."
. Based on the factors laid out in Mutual Life, the $5,000,000 awarded in this case is excessive and a remittitur should be entered in accordance with the authority of Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-55 (2002). These damages are clearly based on prejudice and bias of the jurors because MP&L;s conduct is not so reprehensible to demand this degree of punishment. Based on the facts of this case, we hold that there should be a remittitur of $4,500,000 on the punitive damages of $5,000,000. If the appellee, Cook, accepts such remittitur so as to reduce the punitive damage award to $500,000 within ten days after judgment of this Court becomes final, then the award as reduced will be affirmed. Otherwise, the cause should be reversed and remanded to the circuit court for trial upon the issue of punitive damages. The verdict clearly evidenced bias and prejudice by the jury.
XIII. WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED PROCEDURALLY IN CONSIDERING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES WITHOUT ADEQUATE NOTICE OR OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING OR CROSS-EXAMINATION AND WITHOUT REQUIRING THAT A COURT REPORTER BE PRESENT.
. The standard of review regarding attorneys' fees is the abuse of discretion standard, and such awards must be supported by credible evidence. Regency Nissan, Inc. v. Jenkins, 678 So. 2d 95, 103 (Miss. 1995). "The fixing of reasonable attorneys' fees is a matter ordinarily within the sound discretion of the trial court...." Gilchrist Tractor Co. v. Stribling, 192 So. 2d 409, 418 (Miss. 1966). We have held:
It is well settled in this State that what constitutes a reasonable attorney's fee rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and any testimony by attorneys with respect to such fees is purely advisory and not binding on the trial court. We will not reverse the trial court on the question of attorney's fees unless there is a manifest abuse of discretion in making the allowance.... Mauck v. Col
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|