 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Clark v. Luvel Dairy Products9/25/2001
DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT: 10/01/1999
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. W. SWAN YERGER
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION, PARTIAL DIRECTED VERDICT ENTERED ON BEHALF OF APPELLEE. JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT ENTERED ON JURY VERDICT.
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 09/25/2001
. Henry Clark appeals the judgment of the Hinds County Circuit Court granting motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the defendants. Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
. Clark was employed with Luvel Dairy Products for approximately twenty-four years. On January 9, 1996, he was told that James Briscoe, the president of the company, wanted to speak with him. When Clark arrived at Briscoe's office, he was told that the company had evidence that he had been stealing inventory and selling it for profit. A saleswoman at a store in Leake County was claiming that she had been sold stolen Luvel ice cream by a black man with a deformity in his eye. Briscoe informed Clark that he could either quit or be fired. Briscoe told Clark that he had lost faith in Clark and that he did not trust Clark anymore. Clark refused to resign, and Briscoe threatened to call the sheriff to investigate the alleged crime. Clark told him to call the sheriff.
. When the sheriff's deputy arrived at Luvel, he and Briscoe took Clark's license, along with the licenses of three other employees, to the store where the stolen ice cream had allegedly been sold. Before they left, Briscoe told Clark that he was fired and to clock out and leave the Luvel premises immediately. When the deputy and Briscoe arrived at the store where Clark had allegedly sold the stolen ice cream, the saleswoman who allegedly bought the ice cream was not there. The manager of the store took the licenses to the saleswoman for identification of the person who sold her the ice cream, but the saleswoman said that she could not positively identify the seller. After that, Briscoe informed the deputy that he would not pursue the matter any further.
. Clark subsequently brought this action against Luvel Dairy Products, Inc. and James Briscoe for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, actionable words and false imprisonment. At the close of the plaintiff's case, the trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of the defendants on the issues of actionable words, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and false imprisonment. The defamation issue was submitted to the jury, and the jury found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding him $126,000 in compensatory damages. The defendants then moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the trial court granted. In granting such motion, the trial court noted that there was substantial evidence presented that Clark was actually stealing ice cream from Luvel and that there was no evidence presented that Briscoe ever acted with malice toward Clark during the events giving rise to this litigation.
DISCUSSION
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT ON THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS FOR ACTIONABLE WORDS, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT.
Actionable Words
. In his original action, Clark alleged a claim against Luvel and Briscoe for actionable words. Mississippi's actionable words statute articulates that " ll words which, from their usual construction and common acceptation, are considered as insults, and calculated to lead to a breach of the peace, shall be actionab
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|