 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Robinson v. Hosemann5/26/2005
icable to this civil action filed for libel, slander, false arrest, and malicious prosecution.
The Mississippi Tort Claims Act, being inapplicable to the alleged conduct of the Defendants Turner and Robinson does not overcome the presumption of notice pleading.
. Robinson and Turner filed an amended motion to transfer venue from Warren County to Hinds County. They argued that venue should be transferred under M.R.C.P. 12 (b)(3) and Miss. Code Ann. ยง 11-46-13. Hosemann filed a response in opposition to the amended motion to transfer venue. Hosemann again stated that the instant civil action against Robinson and Turner alleged acts excluded from being under the MTCA. Hosemann further stated that the domicile of the Hinds County Board of Supervisors is irrelevant to determining venue.
. On May 5, 2003, Hosemann filed a First Amended Complaint. In his original complaint, Hosemann did not address the MTCA or make any reference to a claim that falls under the MTCA. In the amended complaint, Hosemann clarified his allegations and specifically addressed the MTCA and his claim for punitive damages. Hosemann stated:
Actions of all defendants in all counts were done willfully, maliciously, and in reckless disregard to the right of the Plaintiff not to be falsely arrested and imprisoned and not to be slandered, libeled, and not to be subjected to malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress justifying an award of punitive damages.
Therefore, Hosemann asserted that the "conduct of public employees defendants Pamela Turner and Eddie Robinson" constituted conduct outside the MTCA.
. Even though the Plaintiff specifically stated that the MTCA was inapplicable and that the actions of Robinson and Turner were outside the scope of employment, the trial court deferred ruling on the motion to transfer venue on the claims that are subject to MTCA and stayed all proceedings on any MTCA claims until after trial in Warren County on the non-MTCA claims.
. Trial was set in the Circuit Court of Warren County and held in October 2003. Robinson received a M.R.C.P. 50 directed verdict at the close of the Plaintiff's case-in-chief. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Turner, and the trial court entered its judgment based on the jury's verdict.
. Hosemann filed an Amended Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV) and/or for a New Trial contesting Robinson's directed verdict and the judgment in favor of Turner. Robinson and Turner responded to Hosemann's motion for JNOV and/or for New Trial.
The trial court denied Hosemann's motion for JNOV and/or for New Trial. The trial court entered a final judgment in favor of Robinson and Turner as provided by M.R.C.P. 54 (b).
. The point of controversy on appeal and in the petition for writ of mandamus and/or writ of prohibition is that the trial court then stated in the same order that " he Court hereby sets for non-jury trial any of Plaintiff's remaining alleged Mississippi Torts Claims Act claims against Pamela Turner and Eddie Robinson in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County." The Plaintiff did not allege any MTCA claims. When the Defendants, Robinson and Turner, attempted to raise application of the MTCA in the first trial, Hosemann opposed it, asserting that the MTCA was not applicable.
. Robinson and Turner contend that the non-jury trial is barred by the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel and judicial estoppel based on the final judgment entered by the trial court in favor of Robinson and Turner. They further claim that allowing the second trial on
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.
|
|