 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dedeaux v. Pellerin Laundry6/28/2005
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED: 06/28/2005
BEFORE KING, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, JJ.
. Marilyn and Eugene Dedeaux filed a claim against Pellerin Laundry, Inc. alleging that they sustained multiple damages as a result of an automobile accident between a vehicle driven by Marilyn and a vehicle owned by Pellerin. The jury returned a verdict in Marilyn's favor and awarded her damages; however, it awarded zero damages to Eugene In response, the Dedeauxes moved for a new trial on the issue of damages, or in the alternative, for an additur. The trial court denied the motion for a new trial, but granted an additur which the Dedeauxes found to be insufficient.
. On appeal, the Dedeauxes argue that (1) the jury award in favor of Marilyn was nominal and against the overwhelming weight of the credible evidence, (2) the jury verdict failing to grant damages to Eugene was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, (3) the trial court erred in refusing to grant their motion for a new trial on the issue of damages, and (4) the trial court erred in failing to grant a more substantial additur to the jury award in their favor.
. We find that Pellerin failed to affirmatively accept the additur in a timely manner; therefore, we order a new trial on the issue of damages only.
FACTS
. In May 1998, Marilyn Dedeaux was involved in an automobile accident with a vehicle owned by Pellerin. Thereafter, on January 14, 1999, Marilyn and her husband Eugene filed a complaint in the Harrison County Circuit Court against Pellerin, alleging multiple damages as a result of the accident. Marilyn specifically alleged property damage, past and future mental and physical pain, suffering, emotional distress, and the loss of enjoyment of life. As already mentioned, Eugene made claims for property damage and loss of consortium as a result of the injuries incurred by his wife. A jury found Marilyn forty-seven percent at fault and returned a verdict in her favor in the amount of $38,512. The verdict was reduced to $20,411.36 following the application of her fault percentage.
. The Dedeauxes filed a motion for a new trial on damages, or in the alternative, for an additur. After a hearing on the matter, the trial court denied the motion for a new trial but granted Marilyn an additur in the amount of $20,000 and Eugene an additur of $10,000. After a reduction to reflect Marilyn's percentage of fault, Marilyn received a total recovery of $31, 011.36, and Eugene received a recovery of $5,300.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES
. Although the Dedeauxes have assigned several issues for our review, the resolution of this case is determined by whether Pellerin made a timely acceptance or rejection of the additur ordered by the trial judge. Under applicable case law, if Pellerin timely accepted the additur, the Dedeauxes do not have a right of appeal. See Maddox v. Muirhead, 738 So. 2d 742 (Miss. 1999); Odom v. Roberts, 606 So. 2d 114 (Miss. 1992); Edelen v. Jackson Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 782 So. 2d 1256 (MisS.Ct. App. 2001). We therefore restrict our analysis to this issue.
. Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-1-55 (Rev. 2002) authorizes a trial judge to award an additur under certain circumstances. Similarly, the Mississippi Supreme Court in Odom outlined the options available to a plaintiff and defendant where the trial court has granted an additur. The Odom court held that a defendant only may elect to (1) reject the additur and have the case retried on the issue of damages only, (2) appeal on the grounds that the circuit court should not have gran
Page 1 2 3 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|