I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 7 - CA- 0 1 7 5 6 - S CT CI TY O F JACKSON

, M I SS I SS I PPI
v. S HAR ON T

RIGG S P AN N
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 06/ 11/ 2007 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. W I NS T ON L
. KI DD COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: PI ETER TEEUW I SS EN AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : J OE N. T AT UM NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY DI S P OS I T I ON: AF F I RMED I N P AR T ; RE VE RS E D AND R E M A N D E D I N PA R T - 01/ 22/ 2009 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

EN BA NC. W ALLER, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1
. S h aro n T ri g g S p an n fi led a n eg li g en ce law su it ag ains t the C ity o f Jac k so n an d M ary Je n k in s in th e C irc u it C o u rt o f th e F irst Ju d icia l D istric t o f H in d s C o u n ty . B e fo re trial, S p a n n se ttl e d w ith Je n k in s, le a v in g th e C ity a s th e so le d e fe n d a n t. F o llo w in g a n o n -ju ry trial, the ci r cui tj udge aw ar ded Spann $285, 595. 52 i n da m ages . B oth part i es agr eed t o a s et of f of $ 2 5 ,0 0 0 , w h ich re fle c ted th e a m o u n t o f th e p re -tria l se ttle m e n t w ith Je n k in s. T h e c irc u it j udge s ubs equent l y ent er ed an am ended f i nal j udgm enti n the amountof $260, 595. 52. B ec au se th ere is no s u b sta n tial, cre d ible ev iden ce to su p p o rtthe a w ard s for fu ture su rge ry

### See in fra
. 1 

### Officer C urrie statedthat h e didno t see the A ltima runa stop signat that p oint. 2 

### 2 and di s abi l i ty, w e af

fi rm in partand r ever s e and r emand i n part , f orentry of

a r emi t t ed ju d g m e n t o f $ 7 0 ,5 9 5 .5 2
.

F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. Fr om the pl eadi ngs , tr ans cr i pt , depos i t i ons , and Spann’ s propos ed f i ndi ngs of f

act and
c o n c lu s io n s o f l a w , w e g le a n th e fo llo w in g . 1 ¶3. O n O ct ober21, 2003, O f f i cer s Regi nald L i gg i ns and R ueb en C urr i e ( her ei naf t er col l ect i vel y “the O f

f i cer s ”) , act i ng i n thei rof f i ci al capa ci ty, i ni t i at ed pur s ui tof a s i l ver Ni s s a n Al t i ma tr a v e l i n g n o r th o n Va l l e y S tr e e t . Ac c o r d i n g t o Of f i c e rLi g g i n s , th e Al t i ma had run a st op si gn and had no l i cense p l at e. W hen the O ff i cers engag ed t heirblue l i gh t s, 2 the A l t i m a f

l ed nor th on V al l ey St r eetand t urned w es tont o C api t ol S tr eetatspee ds betw een
s eventy and ei ghty m i l es perhour
. T he O f f i cer s w er e unabl e to ov ert ake t he vehi cl e and abandone d t hei rpurs ui t . Suspe ct i ng t hatt he A l t i m a had bee n s t ol en, they ca nvas s ed a f ew nei ghborhoods w her e s t ol en car s f r equent l y ar e l ef

t . T hey eve ntual l y r es um ed thei rnor m al p a tr o l. ¶4. Soon t her eaf

t er , the O f

f i cer s s pot t ed the s ame A l t i m a atthe i nt er s ect i on of St
. C har l es A venue and El l i s A venue. A s s oon as the dr i verof the A l t i m a s aw the O f

f i cer s , he r an the
r ed l i ghta nd s pe d s ou th on El l i s Aven ue . The Of f i c e r s , i n turn, r e s umed the i rc ha s e. T he A l t i m a tr avel ed pas tH ar dy M i ddl e School , the J acks on Pu bl i c School ’ s C ar eerD evel opm entO ffi ce r C u rri e testi fi ed that a term ination o rde r w as g iven b efo re the O ffi ce rs 3 r eac hed the i nt er s ect i on. O f f i cerL i ggi ns , on the otherhand, s t at ed thatthey di d notr ece i ve th e o rd e r u n til a ft e r t h e a c c id e n t. 

### Acc ording to Spann, the Officers di d not have their s irens on as the y ent er ed the 4 

### int er se ction. Je nkins al so s tate d that s he di d not s eeany blue ligh ts o r h ear a sire n as she approac hed the inte rs ecti on. Of fi ce r Li ggins , howe ver , s ai d that t hey ha d the ir

li ghts and siren o n g oin g into th e intersectio n. The nam es of

s eve ra l dif

fe re nt physi ci ans who treate d Spann a ppear throughout t

he 5 

### re cord. Howe ver , only thetes timony and rec ords of Dr s. Cre nshaw, Goe l, Wilker son, and Williams w ere sub mitted at trial. The f indings of

ea ch of the sere spe ctivephysi ci ans ar e di sc uss ed infra
. 6 

### 3 C ent er , and P r ovi ne H i gh S chool atspee ds i n exces s of s i xty m i l es perhour , and r an s ever al
re d lig h ts a lo n g th e w a y . ¶5. T he O f

fi cers fol l ow ed t he A l t i m a i nt o the i nt er s ect i on of E l l i s A venue a nd L ynch St r eet . A s they ent er ed the i nt er s ect i on, the O f f i cer s s l ow ed dow n a nd c hecke d f oroncomi ng tra ffic
. T h e re is co n flictin g tes tim o n y as to w h e th e r o r n o t th e O ffic e rs h a d o n th e ir ligh ts

3 and s i r en as they ent er ed the i nt er s ect i on. I ns i de the i nt er s ect i on, the O f fi cers ’ pat r ol car 4
c o lli d e d w ith a N iss a n M a x im a d riv e n b y Je n k in s. T h e fo rc e o f th e c o lli sio n c a u se d th e ir p a tr o l c a r t o h it a F e d e ra l E x p re s s tru c k d ri v e n b y S p a n n . ¶6
. A f

t ert he ac ci dent , Spann w a s tr e a t e d a tBap t i s tM e di c a l Cen t e ri n J acks on and
r el eas ed thats ame day. T he nextm orni ng, she c l ai m ed thats he expe r i ence d pai n thr oughout herbody and coul d ha r dl y move. I n the f ol l ow i ng m onths , Spann w as exami ned by s ever al d o c to rs w h o o ffe re d v a ry in g o p in io n s, inc lu d in g D r. C h a rle s N . C re n sh a w , D r. D in e sh G o e l,

5 D r . J ames L. W i l l i ams, and D r . G eor ge E
. W i l ker s on. Spann att empt ed t o r eturn t o herj ob 6

### 4

atFeder al E xpr es s , buts he w as di s m i s s ed and t ol d nott o r eturn unt i l herm edi cal r es tr i ct i ons h a d b e e n re m o v e d
. ¶7
. O n Ju n e 2 4 , 2 0 0 4 , S p an n fi led s u itag ains t Jen k ins an d th e C ity i n the C ir cu itC o u rt of the Fi r s tJudici al D i s tr i ctof H i nds C ounty. J enki ns w as di s m i s s ed w i th pr ej udi ce a f t er
se ttl in g w ith S p a n n fo r $ 2 5 ,0 0 0
. A fte r a n o n -ju ry trial o n D e c e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 5 , the c irc u it j udge rul ed forS pann i n the amountof $285, 595. 52. T he C i ty f i l ed a mot i on t o amend or
vaca t e the j udgm ent , ori n the al t ernat i ve, fora new tr i al , t o w hi ch Spann f i l ed a r es pons e. T h e c irc u it j u d g e d e n ied th e C ity ’s m o tio n to v a c a te th e ju d g m e n t an d m o tio n fo r n e w trial, b u t en ter e d a n a m e n d e d ju d g m e n t o f $ 2 6 0 ,5 9 5 .5 2 to se t o ff th e e a rlier se ttle m e n t w ith J e n k in s . ¶8. T he C i ty now appea l s t o thi s C our t r ai s i ng the f ol l ow i ng tw o i s s ues : ( 1) w hethert he circu itc o u rte rred in fi n d ing the C ity o n e h u n d red p erc en t l iable; an d (2) w h ethe r th e a w ard
w a s a g a in s t th e s u b s ta n tia l, c re d ib le e v id e n c e . DI S CU S S I ON I . W het her t he ci rcui t c ourt e rre d i n f i ndi ng t he C i t y one hun dred perce nt l i abl e. ¶9. T hi s cas e w as fi l ed pur s uantt o t he M i s s i s s i ppi T or tC l ai m s A ct , and t her ef or e, w as
s u b je c t to h e a ri n g a n d d e te r m in a tio n b y a ju d g e s ittin g w ith o u t a ju ry . M is s . C o d e A n n . § 11- 46- 13 ( R ev. 2002)
. T he f i ndi ngs of

a c i r cui tc our tj udge s i t t i ng w i thouta j ury “w i l l not b e re v e rse d o n a p p e a l w h e re th e y a re su p p o rte d b y su b sta n tial, cr e d ib le, a n d re a so n a b le evi dence
. ” D o n a ld

so n v. Co v in g to n C o u n ty , 846 So. 2d 219, 222 ( M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng Maldonado v. K

e lly , 768 So. 2d 906, 908 ( M i s s . 2000) )
. H ow ever, w her e a tr i al j udge

### Mississip pi C od e Anno tated S ection11 -46 -9(1 )(c) (Rev . 20 02 ) states that: 7 

### (1) A governm ent alentit y and i ts em

ploye es ac ting within t

he c ours e and scop e of th eir emplo yment or duties sh all no t be liab le for any claim: . . . (c) Arisin g out of any act or omissio n o f an emp loy ee of a g ov ernmental entity eng agedin th e pe rf

o rman ce or ex ecutio n o f duties or activ ities relating to poli ceor f

ire prote ction unlessthe e mploy eeacted in re ck lessdis re gard of the saf et ya nd w e ll

- be ing

o f a nyp e r s on n ot e ngage d in c rimina l

a c tiv i t ya t the time o f inju ry ; Miss. C od e Ann. § 11 -46 -9 (1 )(c) (Rev . 20 02 ) (emph asis add ed). Th is Co urt h as set forthten factors to con sider indetermin ing wh ether a p olice p ursu it con stitutedreck less disreg ard. Cit y of Ell is vi ll e v . Richardson , 913 So. 2d 973, 977- 78 (Mi ss . 2005) (c iting Johnson v . Ci ty of Cl evel and, 846 So. 2d 1031 (M iss. 2003)). The Cit y’sbri ef , howe ver , s pec if

ic al ly s tates that

“an ana lys is of the r ec kle ss dis re gard fa ct ors in a purs uit cont ext is unnec es sary in theca seat bar .” 5 adopt s , verbat i m , f

i ndi ngs of

f actand conc l us i ons of

l aw pr epar ed by a pa r ty t o the l i t i gat i on, th is C o u rt a n a ly z e s th o se fin d in g s w ith g re a ter c a re , an d th e e v id e n c e is s u b jec ted to h e ig h te n e d s c ru tin y . B r ooks v. B r ooks , 652 So. 2d 1113, 1118 ( M i s s . 1995) ( ci t i ng O m ni Bank v. U

nite d So ut

he r n Bank , 6 0 7 S o . 2 d 7 6 , 8 3 (M iss . 1 9 9 2 ); Matter of E state of Ford , 552 So. 2d 1065, 1068 (M i s s . 1989))
. B eca us e t he t r i al j udge adopt ed Spann’ s f i ndi ngs of f actand conc l us i ons of

l aw s ubs t ant i al l y verbat i m , l es s m i ni m al s uper f i ci al edi t i ng, t he d e fe re n c e n o rm a lly a ff

o rd e d th e tr ia l ju d g e is le s s e n e d
. See B r ooks , 6 52 So
. 2 d a t1118 ( ci t i ng O m niBank , 6 0 7 S o . 2 d a t 8 3 ). ¶1 0
. T h e C ity d o e s n o t a p p e a l th e c ir cu itco u rt ’s fi n d ing that the O ffi ce rs ac ted w ith
rec k less d isr eg ard in p u rsuin g the A lt im a. R athe r, the C ity a rgu es that ev en if the O ffi ce rs 7 act ed w i th r eckl es s di s r egar d, the ci r cui tcour tfa i l ed pr oper l y t o es t abl i s h thatthei ract i ons

### 6

w er e a pr oxi m at e ca us e of Spann’ s i nj ur i es , and, e ven i f the O f f i cer s w er e a pr oxi m at e ca us e, the ci r cui tcour ter r ed by notappor t i oni ng fa ul tt o Jenki ns , w ho al s o w as a proxi m at e ca us e. ¶11. T o r ecove r damages i n a negl i gence s ui t , a pl ai nt i f f m us t es t abl i s h that the damage
w a s p ro x im a te ly c a u s e d b y th e n e g lig e n t a c t o f t h e d e fe n d a n t( s ). G lo v e r v . J a c kso n S ta te U ni v. , 968 So. 2d 1267, 1277 ( M i s s . 2007); M i s s . C ode A nn. § 85- 5- 7 ( 1) , ( 5) ( R ev. 1999) (fau ltis al loca ted o n ly to the p arty(s) w h ich p rox im ately c au sed the in jury to the p lai n ti ff)
. Pr oxi m at e ca us e r equi r es the f actf i ndert o f i nd thatthe negl i gence w as both the ca us e i n f act
a n d th e le g a l c a u s e o f t h e d a m a g e . G lover , 968 So. 2d at1277 ( ci t i ng D obbs , T he Law of T or t s , § 180 at443 ( 2000) )
. “ C aus e i n f act ” m eans that , butf

orthe def

endant ’ s negl i gence , th e in ju ry w o u ld n o t h a v e o c c u rr e d
. G lover , 968 So. 2d at1277. If the pl ai nt i f

f’ s i nj ur i es
ar e br oughtaboutby m or e than one t or t f eas or , caus e i n f

acti s bas ed upo n w hetherthe
n e g lig e n c e o f a p a rt ic u la r d e fe n d a n t w a s a su b s ta n tia l fa c to r in c a u s in g th e h a rm . I d. at1277
n. 11 (c i t i ng D obbs , T he L aw of Tort s , § 171 at415)
. O nce c aus e i n f acti s es t abl i s hed, the def endant ’ s negl i gence w i l l be dee m ed the l egal caus e s o l ong as the dam age “i s the type,
orw i thi n the cl as s i f

i cat i on, of

damage the negl i gentact or should r eas onabl y expec t( or f or es ee) t o r es ul tf

r om the negl i gentact . ” G lover , 968 So. 2d at1277 ( ci t i ng D ob bs, T he L a w o f T o rt s , § 1 8 0 a t 4 4 3 ). ¶12
. W e f

i nd s ub st anti al evi den ce t o supp ortthe ci rcui tcourt ’s f i nd i ng that the O ff

i cers ’ conductw as a pr oxi m at e ca us e of the ac ci dent
. B utforthe hi gh- s peed pur s ui tand the
m anneri n w hi ch the O f f i cer s pr ocee ded i nt o the i nt er s ect i on, the ac ci dentw oul d nothave
occurr ed. Spann t es t i f

i ed thatthe O f

f i cer s di d nothave thei r si rens on at the t i m e of t he

### Ther e i s no known kinship betwee n thewri ting jus ti ceand De nnis Wal le r. 8 

### Gene ra l Order

600-20 r equire s that

off ic er s not enter a signal ed inte rs ec ti on at 9 

### speed s greater th an fifteenmiles per h our. Gene ra l Order

600-20 als o require s that off ic er s ens urethat

al l t ra ff ic has yie lde d 10 

### befo re pro ceedin g throu gha sign aled intersection
. Th e Citycites Cit

y of Ell is vi ll e v . Richardson , 913 So. 2d 973 (Mi ss . 2005) , and 11 

### Mississip pi Dep artm ent ofPu blic Sa fety v. D urn , 861 So. 2d. 990 ( Mis s. 2003), to s upport it s argum ent

that t he c ircui t c ourt

fa il ed t o addr es s the c omparative fa ult of Je nkins . Ea ch of thes e c as es , howe ver , i s di stingui sha blefrom t he c as e be for e us . In City of Ellisville , the trial court’s find ing s onthe allo cationof fau lt were amb igu ou s. City o f Ellisville , 913 So. 2d at 980. In Du rn , thetri alc ourt fa il ed t o det er

mine i f c omparative f

ault s hould have be en assign ed to the p laintiff. Du rn , 86 1 S o. 2 d at 9 99
. 7 w r eck. J enki ns , l i kew i s e, d i d nots ee a ny bl ue l i ght s orheara s i r en as s he appr oache d t he in te rs e c tio n . W h ile th e O ffic e rs te stifie d to th e c o n tra ry , the c irc u it j u d g e w a s e n tit led to
w e ig h th e c re d ib ili ty o f th is c o n flictin g tes tim o n y . A d d iti o n a lly , S p a n n ’s e x p e rt D e n n is W al l er opi ned thatthe O f f i cer s w entthr ough the i nt er s ect i on m uch f as t erthan the f

i f t een- t o- 8 tw enty m i l es perhour t hat t hey ass ert ed. E ven i f the O f f i cer s di d i n f

acts l ow dow n and 9 chec k f oroncomi ng tr af

f i c, W al l ere xpl ai ned thatthey w er e obl i gat ed t o s t op and ens ur e that al l tr af f i c had s t opped. I tal s o w as hi ghl y f or es eea bl e thatthe O f

f i cer s ’ conductcoul d l ead 10 to a n a c c id e n t. ¶13. W e f

ur therf i nd thatt he ci r cui tcour tdi d notfa i l t o addr es s the compar at i ve f aul tof J enki ns , buts i m pl y a s s i gned one hundr ed per centf aul tt o the C i ty. T he ci r cui tcourtdi d not
s etf or th spec i f

i c per cent ages of f

aul tei thert o the C i ty ort o J enki ns , butcl ear l y hel d thatt he O f f i cer s w er e “ the pr oxi m at e ca us e[ ] ” of the acc i dent
. B y f

i ndi ng onl y one pr oxi m at e ca us e, the cir cuitcou rti m pli ci t l y assi gn ed n o faul tt o Jenk i ns. 11

### 8

¶1 4
. W e also fi n d su b stan ti al ev iden ce to sup p o rt the circu it co u rt ’s fi n d ing that O ffi ce rs
w er e t he sol e pr oxi m at e caus e of t he col l i s i on. A s pre vi ous l y not ed, W al l ert es t i f i ed t hatt he O f f i cer s w er e the s ol e pr oxi m at e ca us e of the w r eck. A s a gene r al rul e, a “mot or i s t ’ s r i ght t o as s um e thatthe dr i verof a vehi cl e pr ocee di ng t ow ar d an i nt er s ect i on w i l l obey the l aw of the r oad, w hi ch r equi r es hi m t o s t op bef or e ent er i ng the i nt ers ect i on , exi s t s onl y unt i l he k n o w s o r i n th e e x e rc is e o f o rd in a ry c a re s h o u ld k n o w o th e rw is e .” Busic k v. St . Jo hn , 856 So. 2d 304, 317 ( M i s s . 2003) ( quot i ng Jobr on v. W hatley , 250 M i s s . 792, 168 So. 2d 279, 2 8 4 (19 6 4 )). C ertain fac ts sug g est th at Jen k ins sh o u ld h av e re ali ze d the n ee d to stop b efo re
en teri n g the in tersection

— all o ther traffi c h ad h alt ed an d s h e a d m itt ed that h er e y es w ere t i r ed. N everthel es s , J enki ns s t at ed thats he w as obs ervantand f ocus i ng s tr ai ghtahea d att he t i m e. M or e s i gni f

i cant l y, J enki ns t es t i f

i ed thats he had a gr een l i ghtand di d nots ee a ny bl ue li g h ts or h ea r an y sir en as sh e p roc ee d ed into the intersec ti o n . T h is co rresp o n d s w ith S p an n ’s t es t i mony tha tthe Of

f i c e r s d i d no th a ve the i rl i gh t s a nd s i r e ns e ng a ge d a tthe t i m e of t he
ac cide n t. W h il e ad m ittedly a c lose q u esti o n o f fac t, w e find rea so n ab le ev iden ce to su p p o rt th e c ir c u it c o u rt ’s fi n d in g . ¶15. Forthe af

or ement i oned r eas ons , w e f i nd the C i ty’ s f

i r stassi gn m ent of e rr ort o be
w ith o u t m e ri t. I I . W het her t he aw ard w as agai nst t he s ubst ant i al , cre di bl e evi dence. ¶ 1 6
. A s d isc u ss e d u n d e r Is s u e I, w e a n a ly z e th e e v id e n c e in th e s u bje c t c a se w ith h e ig h te n e d s c ru tin y . See B r ooks , 652 So. 2d at1118 ( ci t i ng Matter of E state of Ford , 552 So. 2d at1068). W hen r evi ew i ng an aw ar d f ordamages , thi s C our tw i l l notovertur n an

### He not ed that shehad “ a l ittl e bi t of

a l im p bec aus e of

thele ft kneeinj ury. ” 12 

### 9 aw ar d un l e s s the d a mage s a r e “ s o e xc e s s i ve a s t o s tr i ke man ki nd , a tf i r s tb l us h, a s bei ng, b e y o n d a ll m e a su re , u n re a so n a b le, a n d o u tra g e o u s, a n d s u c h a s m a n ife stly s h o w th e ju ry to have be en ac tuat ed by pas s i on, part i al i ty, pr ej udi ce, orcor rupt i on . ” U n ite d S ta te s Fid

. & G u a r. Co . v. E sta te o

f Fra n c is , 825 So. 2d 38, 47 ( M i s s . 2002) ( quot i ng B iloxiE lec. Co. v. T h orn , 2 6 4 S o . 2 d 4 0 4 , 4 0 5 (M is s . 1 9 7 2 ))
. ¶17. T he C i ty a r gues thatthe tr i al c our ts i m pl y i gnor ed the t es t i m ony of D r s . W i l l i ams and W i l ker s on. I tf

ur thers ubm i t s thatthe t es t i m ony of D r s . C r ens haw and G oel does not
r eas onabl y s uppor tthe ci r cui tcourt ’ s aw ar d of damages
. W e not e thata l l of the phys i ci ans te s tif ie d b y d e p o s itio n s o th e tr ia l c o u rt w a s n o t a b le to o b s e rv e th e ird e m e a n o r. ¶ 1 8
. D r. C re n s h a w , w h o is a fa m ily p h y sic ian a t th e R e se rv o ir F a m ily M e d ica l C lin ic in Fl ow ood, M i s s i s s i ppi , s aw Spann on tw enty- f ourocca s i ons f

r om O ct ober22, 2003, thr ough M ay 25, 2005. H e i ni t i al l y det erm i ned thatSpann had “r i ghtpos t er i orneck musc l e and a nd l eftant er i orneck musc l e s tr ai n and s pas m , contus i on, pos s i bl e s tr ai n t o the l ef tknee, 12 lu m b o sa c ra l stra in a n d sp a sm a n d a ten sio n h e a d a c h e .” H e p re sc rib e d so m e a n tiin fl a m m a to ri e s a n d m u s c le re la x e rs , a n d re c o m m e n d e d p h y s ic a l th e ra p y . ¶19
. In her fol l ow i ng vis i t s w i th D r. C renshaw , S pan n exh i bit ed vari ou s othersym ptom s. In D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 3 , sh e s h o w e d fo r th e firs t tim e s o m e s ig n s o f n e rv e d a m a g e c o n sis ten t w ith a L4-5 ne r ve r oo tco m press i on. I n J anuary 2004, s he compl ai ned of a “ba nd l i ke [ s i c] heada che” and arthr i t i c pai n i n he rha nds , arm s , f eet , and l egs . I n February 2004, s he ci t ed

### Dr. Cre nshaw st at ed that one c ould nor

ma lly expe ct

to re cove r from suc h an inj ury 13 

### with in sixto tenweek s, but that S pann h ad n ot resp on dedadequatelyto h is treatments. 10 p a in in h e r le ft a rm . G iv e n th e se o d d c h a n g e s, D r. C re n sh a w re fe rre d h e r to a n e u ro lo g ist, D r. W il k erso n . In A p ri l 20 0 4 , D r. C ren sh aw rev iew ed a m ag n eti c re so n an ce im ag ing (M R I)
r eport . A c c or di ng t o Dr
. C r ens haw , the r eports how ed no s i gni f i cantcompromi s e thr oughout the l um bars pi ne and a nor m al di s t al cor d. T he r eportdi d, how ever, i ndi cat e “s om e mi nor
arthr i t i c type cha nges, co ncen t r i c di s k [ s i c] bul ge a[ t ] L 4- 5, [ and] s om e f ace tj oi nt h y p ertrop h y . ” D r. C ren sh aw b eli ev ed that the M R I fi n d ing s len t cred ibil ity to S p an n ’s compl ai nts o f l ow er - back pa i n. H e des cr i bed hercondi t i on as “chr oni c w hi pl as h i nj ur y. ” ¶ 2 0
. W h ile D r. C re n sh a w th o u g h t th a t S p a n n h a d e m b e llish e d so m e th in g s, h is o v e ra ll
o p i n i o n wa s th a ts h e d i d s u f f e ra n a c tu a l i n

j u ry a s a r e s u l to f

th e a c c i d e n t . Th e r e we r e s o me p r o b l e ms th a th e c o u l d n o tr e l a t e t o th e wr e c k , s u c h a s a r th r i t i c - ty p e p a i n i n h e rh a n d s , a r m, and f eet . N everthel es s , he s t at ed thatthe pai n i n he rr i ghtpos t er i orne ck and the gene r al ar ea of the L4-5 di s c i n herl ow erback w as obj ect i vel y “r epr oduci bl e every t i m e. ” H e al s o s t at ed thatthes e part i cul ars ym pt om s w oul d be cons i s t entw i th the type of col l i s i on t hats he had
e x p e ri e n c e d
. ¶21. D r . C r ens haw opi ned thatSpann c ou l d h a ve pe r f ormed s ome l i gh tduty— butno heavy l i f t i ng— betw een O ct ober2003 and M ay 2005. H e s t at ed t hats he pr obabl y coul d have 13 d riv e n a d e liv e ry tru c k a n d th a t sh e n e e d e d to m o v e a ro u n d so m e , b u t sa id th a t sh e sh o u ld notpi ck up and ha ul packa ges unt i l she f ul l y r ecove r ed. B eca us e herl as tvi s i tt o hi m w as in M a y 2 0 0 5 , h e p re s u m e d th a t s h e c o u ld h a v e re tu rn e d to w o rk a t th a t tim e .

### The MRIof Spann’s bra in s howed a sm al l l es ion, whic h Dr
. Goels ai d coul d have 14 

### bee n there sult of

a s ma ll h em orr

hagein t he pa st . Heac knowle dged that thi s he mor

rha ge cou ld h ave b een relatedto so methin g o ther th an th e accident. The di sa bil it y rating is dis cus se d at

gre at er le ngth infra at pp . 17 -19
. 15 

### 11 ¶2 2
. D r. G o e l, w h o p ra c tice s fa m il y m ed ici n e a t th e M ed ical C li n ic of M issi ssipp i in Ja c k so n , M iss iss ip p i, sa w S p a n n o n a b o u t six o r s e v e n o c c a sio n s fr o m M a rc h 2 0 0 5 u n til N o v em b er 2 0 0 5
. D r. G o el st ated that h e q u itp ra cti cing su rge ry a b o u t ei g h t or n ine y ea rs ago, and hi s pr i nci pal pr act i ce i s now f ami l y m edi ci ne. H e al s o s t at ed thathe s ees m any ca r
a c c id e n t p a tie n ts e a c h w e e k
. ¶23. D r . G oel di agnos ed Spann as havi ng a pos t - t raum at i c h eadac he, ch r oni c nec k and back pa i n, and depr es s i on. H e or der ed M R I s on herneck, back, br ai n, and knee
. A ccor di ng to D r. G o el, th e se M R Is s h o w ed the fo ll o w ing : ( 1 ) m inim al bu lging o f th e C 5 -6 a n d C 6 -7 di s cs i n herneck; ( 2) L 4- 5 di s c bul gi ng i n herl um bars pi ne; and ( 3) a t orn m eni s cus i n her l eftkn ee. H e fur ther noted deg enerat i ve ch ang es i n h er lum bar spi ne as w el l as ar thri t i s.

14 H e recom m end ed that she u nd ergo arthroscop i c surgery t o repai r the torn m enis cus. B ecause of the meni s cus t ear , he as s i gned hera f i ve- per centdi s abi l i ty r at i ng. 15 ¶24. D r. W i l l i ams, w ho i s a phys i cal m edi ci ne and r ehabi l i t at i on s peci al i s t atM etho dis t R eha bi l i t a t i on Cent e ri n J a c ks on , M i s s i s s i pp i , tr e a t e d Sp a nn on f ou roc c a s i on s f

r om D ece m ber8, 2003, unt i l February 3, 2004. I n hi s i ni t i al exami nat i on on D ece m ber8, 2003, D r. W i l l i am s noted that she h ad t end erness in m ult i ple ar eas of her neck, back , and bu t t ock s, and exhi bi t ed s om e w eakne s s i n the muscl es around herl ef thi p j oi nt . O therw i s e, s he had

### 12

nor m al s tr ength i n heru pp er and low erextr emi t i es and a norm al r ange of m ot i on i n her
s pi ne. H e expr es s ed s kept i ci s m conce rni ng the s pr ead of pai n t hrough s o m any di f f er ent
ar eas . Forexampl e, he coul d notexpl ai n how he cou l d press on one partof herbody, and
s he coul d exper i ence pai n i n a t ot al l y di f f er entpartas a r es ul t . H i s over al l i ni t i al as s es s m ent
w as that“s he had ne ck and l ow back pa i n w i th exami nat i on f i ndi ngs thatw er e cons i s t ent
w i th e xagger at ed pai n behavi or . ” H e pr es cr i bed phys i cal ther apy and r ecomm ended thats he d isco n ti n u e the an ti -i n fl am m atories a n d m u scle relax ers. H e p rov ided h er a return -t o -w o rk
excus e, r ecomm endi ng thats he l i f tno m or e t han f

i f ty pounds i nf

r equent l y, and no m or e than tw e n ty -f iv e p o u n d s fr e q u e n tly
. ¶ 2 5
. Dr
. W i l l i a ms ’ s a s s e s s me n t o f S p a n n c h a n g e d v e ry l i t t l e i n h e r f o l l o wi n g v i s i t s . He conducted an electrom yo graphy (EM G ) i n Janu ary 200 4, w hi ch r evea l ed no s i gni f i cantnerve
ro o t d a m a g e . In F e b ru a ry 2 0 0 4 , h e o n c e a g a in d e sc ri b e d h e r c o n d iti o n a s “ n o n sp e c ific
m e c h a n ic a l n e c k , m id , a n d lo w e r b a c k p a in w ith s ig n if ic a n t e x a g g e ra te d p a in b e h a v io r . . . and a hi s t ory i ncons i s t entw i th anat om i cal pathol ogy. ” H e w as al s o of the opi ni on that “s econda ry gai n i ssues” w ere pr om i nen t . H e exp l ai ned “secon dary ga i n is sues” as pr es ent i ng
o n e se lf w ith a n ill n e ss o r c o n d iti o n in o rd e r to rec e iv e atte n tio n a n d /o r fa v o ra b le tre a tm e n t. A tthis po i nt, he recom m end ed thatshe return t o w ork w i th n o restri ct i on s. ¶26. D r . W i l ker s on, a boar d- cert i f i ed neur ol og i st at R anki n M edi cal C ent er i n B r andon, M issi ssipp i, saw S p an n tw ice in F eb rua ry 2 0 0 4 an d in M arc h 2 0 0 4 , u p o n a re ferral from D r.

### Dr. Wilker son a cknowl edge d that hedid not re vie w thea ct

ualMRI f ilm and was 16 

### no t qu alified to interp ret suchfilm. 13 C re n sh a w . In M a rc h 2 0 0 4 , h e re v iew e d h e r M R I an d E M G rep o rts a n d b e liev e d the re su lts 16 of thes e s tudi es appea r ed norm al
. H i s i m pr es s i on w as t hatS pann had s om e “musc ul os kel at al di s comf ort ” bu tno thi ng maj or . H e be l i e ve d tha tSpa nn ha d r e a c he d max i mum medi c al im p ro v e m e n t a n d c o u ld g o b a c k to w o rk im m e d ia te ly
. ¶27. T he tr i al occurr ed on D ece m ber 12, 200 5, an d Spann s ubm i t t ed herf i r s t pr opos ed f i ndi ngs of

f actand conc l us i ons of

l aw o n D ecem ber30, 2005. Spann then s ubm i t t ed an amended pr opos ed f

i ndi ngs of

f actand conc l us i ons of

l aw
— w hi ch cont ai ned a s i gni f i cant

### In he r firs t propos ed findings of fa ct and c onclusi ons of

law subm itte d D ece m ber 17 30, 2005 

### , S pann stated that Dr. Go el h ad assign ed h er a five-p ercent p artial perman ent lo ss of fun ctionto h er left kne e . For s upport , Spann cor

re ctly c it ed Dr . Goe l’ s deposi ti on at page twe nty- one, lines one through e ight . But in he r ame nded propo se d findings of f ac t and conc lus ions of l aw, fi le d j us tf ourdays l at er 

### , sheass erte d that Dr. Goelhad as si gned a

fi vepercent wholebody dis abi li ty. Spann onc e a gain ci te d Dr. Goel ’s depos ition at pagetwe ntyone, lines one through e ight . Howe ver , a s se t out bel ow, this portion of Dr. Goel ’s te stim ony reference s on ly h er left kne e , no t the who le bo dy
. [Sp ann ’s Atto rney ]: An d befo re we go to 3/2 1/0 5, let me b ack up. D r. Go el, in te rm s of her

l ef t kneem eni sc us te ar , did you rea ch any conc lus ions as to a dis abi li ty rating? [Dr . Goe l] : Late r on Igaveher 5 percent par

ti alper manent los s of func ti on. [Spann’s Att orne y] : In her le ft knee ? [Dr. G oel]: Yeah
. Lat er in the depos ition, on pages ixt y-s ix, l ine s twenty through twe nty- fi ve, Dr. Goel as si gned a

fi ve- perce nt di sa

bil it y to thebody as a whol e, without e luc idati on re garding t he discrep ancy . 14 dif fer ence— a few day s l at er on Jan uary 3 , 2 00 6. T he fi nal j ud gm ent w as ent ered al m ost 17
on e year l at er on D ecem ber 1, 200 6, i n w hich Span n w as aw arded t he fol l ow i ng dam ages: Pas tM edi cal E xpens es $26, 875. 53 Futur e M edi cal $20, 000. 00 L os tW ages $18, 720. 00 Futur e Sur gery $20, 000. 00 Pai n and Suf

f er i ng $50, 000. 00 D i s abi l i ty $150, 000. 00 $285, 595. 53 T h e to tal a w a rd su b se q u e n tly w a s re d u c e d b y $ 2 5 ,0 0 0 , to a c c o u n t fo r th e se ttl e m e n t w ith J e n k in s . T h u s , th e fi n a l ju d g m e n t to ta le d $ 2 6 0 ,5 9 5 .5 2
.

### The circui t cour t’ s opini on and order

ref er s to Drs . Wil li am s and Wi lke rs on as the 18 

### City ’s exp erts. In its brief, the City clarifies that these phy sicians were no t hiredbythe C ity andwere experts o nlyto th e extent that all treatin g d octo rs are exp erts. 15 ¶28
. In i t s opinion a n d o rde r, the tri al c o u rtfo u n d that“t he ex pertop i nions of D rs . C r ens haw and G oel ar e very per s uadi ng and s houl d ther ef or e be gi ven more w ei ghtthan the
o p in io n s o f [D rs. W ill iam s a n d W ilk e rs o n ].” T h is c o m p a ra tiv e lan g u a g e is e n o u g h to 18 in d ica te th a t th e trial ju d g e c o n sid e re d th e tes tim o n y b e fo re it a n d m e re ly a c ted w ith in h is p ro v in c e to w e ig h th e c re d ib ility o f w itn e s s e s . Miss. D ep’t of P u b. S afet

y v. D u rn , 861 So. 2d 990, 994 ( M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng Cit y of Jac kson v. L i

ps ey , 83 4 S o. 2d 68 7, 69 1 (M i ss. 2 0 0 3 ))
. ¶29. Y etthe C i ty adamant l y cont es t s w hetherD r. C renshaw ’s an d D r. G oel ’ s opi ni ons
w er e s uf f i ci entto j ust i f

y Spann’ s damages
. T he C i ty cont ends thatD r . C r ens haw i s not bo ard- cert i fi ed and that he exp res sed som e dou bt abo ut the extentof S pan n’s i njur i es; ther ef or e, hi s t es t i m ony does notpr ovi de s ubs t ant i al , cr edi bl e ev i dence t o s uppor ther damages
. A s t o D r . G oel , the C i ty i ns i s t s t hat hi s t es t i m ony s houl d be gi ven no w ei ght beca us e i tw as notbase d upon s uf f i ci entfa ct s or dat a. T he C i ty s ubm i t s that , among ot her thi ngs , D r . G oel di d notr evi ew the r ecor ds of Spann’ s othermedi cal pr ovi der s ; di d nots ee Spann unt i l one- and- a- hal f year s af t erthe ac ci dent ; knew thats he had a l i en arr angement
w ith S p a n n ’s c o u n se l fo r a n o u tsta n d in g b ill o f $ 3 ,8 8 2 ; a n d c o n c e d e d th a t h e r lu m b a r p a in
w a s s u b je c tiv e ly m in im a l.

### Daubert v . Merrel l Dow Phar

ms. , I nc. , 509 U. S. 579, 587, 113 S. Ct
. 2786, 125 19 

### L. Ed. 2d 469 ( 1993). Mis si ss ippif oll ows the m odif

ie d Da ub ert

st andard, whic h re quires the trial co urt to perfo rm a two -pro ng ed in qu iry to d et ermi n e wheth er exp ert testimony is admissib le un der Rule 7 02 of th e Mississi p p i Ru les of E vid ence. Miss. Trans p. Comm’

n v. McL emo re , 863 So. 2d 31, 38 ( Mis s. 2003) ( ci ting Pip iton e v. Bio ma trix , Inc ., 288 F.3d 23 9, 2 44 (5thC ir
. 2 0 0 2 )). Th e trial court must first d etermine wheth er the testimo nyis relevant, th enwh ether th e pro ffered testimo nyis reliable. McL emo re , 863 So. 2d at 38 (c iting Pipi

tone , 28 8 F .3dat 24 4; Ma this v. Exxon Corp. , 302 F. 3d 448, 460 ( 5th Cir. 20 02 )). 16 ¶3 0
. W e find th a t a n y c h a llen g e s to the reli ab il ity o f D r. C ren sh aw ’s an d D r. G o el’s opi ni ons s houl d have be en addr es s ed i n the ci r cui tcourtvi a a D au bert c h a lle n g e . See 19 Sm it h v. Cle m e nt , 2008 M i s s . L E X I S 172, *8 ( M i s s . A pr i l 3, 2008) ( ci t i ng P oo le v. A vara , 908 So. 2d 716, 723 ( M i s s . 2005) ) ( tr i al j udges bearthe gat e- keepi ng r es pons i bi l i ty f orthe ad mi s s i on o f

e xp e r tt e s t i mony)
. A tDr
. Goel ’ s d e po s i t i on , the Ci ty ob j e c t e d t o hi s bei ng t ender ed as an expe r ti n phys i cal m edi ci ne. A ttr i al , how ever , the C i ty r ai s ed no obj ect i on to th e a d m is s io n o f D rs . C re n s h a w ’s a n d G o e l’ s d e p o s itio n s . ¶31. W e f

i nd the t es t i m ony of D r s . C r ens haw and G oel s uf f i ci ent t o s uppor t the aw ar d of d am ag e s fo r p ast m ed ical ex p en ses, l o st w ag es, an d p ain a n d su fferi n g . D r. C ren sh aw ’s
asses sm ent of

S pan n d i d rai se som e qu est i on s as t o the ext ent of her i njur i es. B ut he al so cl ar i f i ed that , even i f

Spann m ay have embel l i s hed s om e t hi ngs , t hi s di d notdetr actf r om t he f actthats he had e xper i ence d an actual i nj ury. H i s t es t i m ony, cons i der ed on i t s ow n, m ay
w e ll fall sho rtof co n sti tuti n g sub stan ti al, cred ible ev iden ce . B u t w h en his t esti m o n y is
cons i der ed al ongs i de D r . G oel ’ s , t her e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence
. A ccor di ng t o thei rt es t i m ony, S p a n n w a s d iag n o se d a s h a v in g p o st-tra u m a tic h e a d a c h e s, c h ro n ic n e c k a n d b a c k p a in , left-A l though t he A gr eed St i pul at i on as t o the A dm i s s i bi l i ty of M edic al R ecor ds and 20 B i l l s st at es uneq uivocal l y thatthe C i ty “reserves t he ri gh tto argue ag ai nstthe reasonab l eness and nec es s i ty of

the tr eatm ent , ” the ci r cui tcourt ’ s opi ni on s t at es thatthe s um w as agr eed on b y th e p a rties a s S p a n n ’s “ re a so n a b le a n d n e c e ss a ry m e d ica l trea tm e n t an d b ill .” T h e C ity do es not chal l eng e t his dis crepancy , bu tcon t est s the aw ard of dam ages in to to . 

### The c ircui t c ourt

aw ar ded l os tw ages fr om M ar ch 7, 2005, unt i l D ece m ber12, 2005, 21 w hi ch w as the dat e of

tr i al
. T he ci r cui tcourtappar ent l y chos e t o begi n i t s cal cul at i on on M ar ch 7, 2005, beca us e thatw as the dat e o n w hich D r . G oel f i r s texami ned Spann and decl ar ed hert o be t empora r i l y t ot al l y di s abl ed. 

### Spann te stif

ie d that s he wa s paid $13. 92 per

hour at t he tim e of

theac ci dent . The 22 

### trial court, ho wev er, basedits calculatio n o n $ 13 per h our. 17 knee pa i n, and depr es s i on. T es t s i ndi cat ed: ( 1) mi ni m al bul gi ng of the C 5- 6 and C 6- 7 di s cs i n he rne ck; ( 2) L4- 5 di s c bul gi ng i n he rl um bars pi ne; ( 3) m i l d f ace tj oi nthypertr ophy; ( 4) and a meni s cus t eari n herl ef tknee. B eca us e S pan n had no pr i orhi s t ory of neck orback p a in , D rs . C re n s h a w a n d G o e l a ttr ib u te d h e r p a in a n d a rt h ri tic c h a n g e s to th e a c c id e n t. ¶32
. T h e am o u n ts for p ast m ed ical ex pen ses, l ostw ages, and pain and suff ering are
s uppor t ed i n the evi dence and do not“s hock the cons ci ence ” of t he C our t . T he $26, 875. 53 f orpas tm edi cal expens es i s equi val entt o the t ot al am ountof al l m edi cal bi l l s agr eed by the part i es as authent i c and a dm i s s i bl e attr i al
. T he aw ar d of $18, 720 f

orl os tw ages w as 20 cal cul at ed by mul t i pl yi ng thi r ty- s i x w eeks , a tf or ty hour s perw eek, at$13 perhour
. T he 21 22 $50, 000 amount f

orpai n and s uf

f er i ng i s s uppor t ed by Spann’ s ow n tes t i m ony aboutt he phys i cal and emot i onal pa i n thats he has s uf f er ed s i nce the ac ci dent , as w el l as the t es t i m ony of D r s . C r ens haw and G oel
. B eca us e of the meni s cus t earand cont i nui ng back pa i n, Spann
a ls o w ill e n d u re fu tu re p a in a n d s u ff e ri n g .

### 18

¶3 3
. H o w ev er, w e d o n o t f ind su b stan tial, c re d ible ev iden ce to su p p o rtthe tri al co u rt ’s $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 a w a rd fo r fu tu re m e d ica l ex p e n se s, its $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 a w a rd f o r fu tu re su rg e ry , o r its $150, 000 aw ar d fordi s abi l i ty. A l though D r . G oel t es t i f i ed thatSpann w oul d l i kel y cont i nue t o exper i ence ai l m ent s , ther e i s no t es t i m ony e s t abl i s hi ng f utur e m edi cal e xpens es , othert han the e q u ivo ca l t esti m o n y reg ard ing future su rge ry. T h e o n ly su p p o rtfor $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 for fu ture
su rg e ry c o m e s fr o m th e fo llo w in g e x c h a n g e : [ Spann’ s A t t orney] : W i thi n a r eas onabl e degr ee of medi cal cert ai nty, do you have a r eas onabl e es t i m at i on of w hatthe cos tw oul d be t o s ur gi cal l y r epai rthe m eni s cus t ear ?

. . . . [D r. G o e l] : W

e ll, I w o u ldg u e s s a r o u n d

$ 2 0 ,0 0 0
. I don’tkno w f or sure . [S p a n n ’s A tto rn e y ]: O k a y . [D r. G o e l]: It ’s th e h o s p ita l c h a rg e s . [S p a n n ’s A tto rn e y ]: B u t b a se d o n y o u r b a c k g ro u n d a s a s u rg e o n , a re a so n a b le es t i m at i on w oul d be $20, 000? [D r. G o e l] : T

his is my gu ess . (E m p h a s is a d d e d ). ¶34. C ons i der i ng t hatD r . G oel had notpr act i ced s ur gery f orei ghtor ni ne yea r s , w e f i nd hi s m er e “gue s s ” i ns uf f i ci entt o es t abl i s h s ubs t ant i al , cr edi bl e evi dence t o supportt he $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 a w a rd f

o r f u tu re s u rg e ry . See Ca tch in gs v . S ta te , 684 So. 2d 591, 598 ( M i s s . 1996) (e x p e rt m e d ica l tes tim o n y m u st e v in c e so m e lev e l o f c e rta in ty ). O u r fin d in g d o e s n o t im p ly thatSpann di d nots uf

f era t orn m eni s cus . E ven though no othert es t i f yi ng phys i ci an det ect ed thi s i nj ury, ther e i s nothi ng i n t he r ecor d t o re f ut e D r . G oel ’ s f

i ndi ng. B utthe f

actthats uch

### 19

a n in ju ry e x iste d d o e s n o t les se n th e n e e d fo r c re d ib le e v id e n c e to su p p o rt th e c o sts
a s s o c ia te d w ith tr e a tm e n t a n d /o r r e p a ir
. ¶35. T he $20, 00 0 forfut ure surgery an d t he $1 50 , 000 f ordi s abi l i ty ar e i nt err el at ed. B eca us e of

the t orn m eni s cus and the r es ul t i ng l os s of f unct i on to her le f

tknee, D r . G oel
as s i gned a f

i ve- per centdi s abi l i ty r at i ng t o Spann. A ccordi ng t o the A m er i can M edi cal A ssoci at i on ’s G ui des t o the E val uat i on of P er m anent

I m pai r m ent , an i m pai r m enteval uat i on sh o u ld in c lu d e “ a c o m p re h e n siv e , ac c u ra te m e d ica l h isto ry ; a r e v iew a n d su m m a ry o f a ll pat i entr ecor ds ; a nd a compre hens i ve des cr i pt i on of the i ndi vi dual ’ s curr ents ym pt om s and thei rre l at i ons hi p t o dai l y act i vi t i es , ” as w el l as a thor ough phys i cal exami nat i on and r evi ew
o f a ll th e re le v a n t te s ts . R o b e rt D . R o n d in e lli, M .D ., P h .D ., e t a l., G ui des t o the Eval uat i on of P er m anent

I m pai r m ent

5 (A m eri can M edical A ssoci at i on , 6th e d. 2008 

### ). T he o n ly su p p o rt i n the r ecor d f

orD r . G oel ’ s as s i gnm entof a f i ve- per centl os s of

f unct i on w as hi s not at i on of a mi l d r es tr i ct i on i n the r ange of m ot i on of

he rl ef tknee, chr oni c pai n, and heri nabi l i ty t o put herf ul l w ei ghton the l ef

tknee. H e f

ur theradvi s ed Spann t o s ee a n or thopedi c s ur geon, but sh e s a id th a t s h e c o u ld n o t fin d o n e . T h e re is n o tes tim o n y , rep o rt, o r o th e r e v id e n c e to
s uppor tt hatD r . G oel engaged i n a com pr ehens i ve eval uat i on. T el l i ngl y, he ac know l edged h is o w n u n c e rta in ty a s to S p a n n ’s p h y sic a l li m itatio n s. W h e n a sk e d w h e th e r S p a n n w o u ld b e a b le to re tu rn to w o rk , h e sta ted tha t he d id n o t be liev e so b u t ad d e d th a t “[s ]he n e e d s to be eva l uat ed by [ an] or thopaedi c s ur geon . . . and then w e ca n come t o thatconcl us i on. ”

### 20

¶36. B eca us e of

the l ack of

evi dent i ary sup po rtfor D r. G oel’ s fi nd i ng s, w e f i nd no
s u b s ta n tia l, c re d ib le e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt th e $ 1 5 0 ,0 0 0 fo r d is a b ility
. See M i s s . R. E vi d. 702 (ex p ert t esti m o n y m u st be the p rod u ct of reliable p ri n ciples a n d m etho d s. ) CO NC L US I ON ¶37
. W e affirm the c ir cu itc o u rt ’s fi nd i ng that the C i ty w as sol el y li able f or S pan n ’s injuries. B ec au se w e find n o su b stan ti al, cre d ible ev iden ce to su p p o rtthe a w ard for fu ture
m edical exp enses, future s urgery, or dis abil i ty, w e r everse the j ud gm ent and r em and this case to th e tr ia l c o u rt w h ic h is d ir e c te d to e n te r a fi n a l ju d g m e n t in th e a m o u n t o f $ 7 0 ,5 9 5 .5 2
. ¶ 3 8
. A F F I R M E D I N P A R T ; R E V E R S E D A N D R E M A N D E D I N P A R T . CARL S ON, P. J . , RANDOL P H, LA M AR AND CHANDL ER , J J . , CONCUR. GR AVES, P. J . , CO NCU RS I N PART AND DI S S ENTS I N PART W I TH SEP ARA TE W R I T T E N O P I N I O N J O I N E D B Y D I C K I N S O N , K I T C H E N S A N D P I E R C E , J J . GRAVE S , P RE S I DI NG J US TI CE , CONCURR I NG I N P ART AND DI S S ENTI NG I N PART: ¶39. B ecause t he damages aw ar ds f or f utur e s ur gery and di s abi l i ty ar e s uppor t ed by t he evi dence , I di s s enti n pa r t . A s s t at ed by the m aj or i ty, thi s Courta ppl i es t he sub st ant i al
ev iden ce stan d ard w h en rev iew in g th e find ing s o f a jud g e sit ti n g as th e fa ctfi n d er. D o n a ld so n v. Co v in g to n Co u n ty , 8 4 6 S o . 2 d 2 1 9 , 2 2 2 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 ). T h a t is, this C o u rt w ill af f i r m the f i ndi ngs of

the tr i al j udge i f

they ar e s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al , credi bl e, and
re a s o n a b le e v id e n c e . D el ta Reg’ l Med. Ctr. v. V

enton , 9 6 4 S o . 2 d 5 0 0 , 5 0 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ); D onalds on , 8 4 6 S o . 2d at 22 2
. W h en rev iew ing aw ard s for d am ag es, th is C o u rtw il l affi rm

### 21

th e a w a rd , u n les s it is “ so ex c e ss iv e as to strik e m a n k in d , a t first b lu sh , as b e in g , b e y o n d a ll
m eas ur e, unr eas onabl e, and outr ageous , and such as m ani f es t l y show t he j ury t o have be en actuat ed by pas s i on, part i al i ty, pr ej udi ce, orcorrupt i on. ” D elta R eg’l Med. Ctr. , 964 So. 2d at506 ( ci t i ng U

n itedS ta tes Fid

. & G u a r. C o . v. E sta te o f Fra n c is , 82 5 S o. 2d 38 , 47 (M i ss. 2 0 0 2 )). T h is C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t “[t]h e a w a rd is n o t to b e se t as id e u n le s s it is e n tirely di s pr opor t i onat e t o the i nj ury s us t ai ned. ” D elta R eg’l Med. Ctr. , 964 So. 2d at506 ( ci t at i ons
om i t t ed)
. A ddi t i onal l y, “the damages m us tbe f l agr ant l y outr ageous and extr avaga nt , ort he
courtc annotunde r t ake t o dr aw the l i ne; f orthey have no s t andar d by w hi ch t o as cert ai n t he
exce s s . ” U

nited States Fid. & G uar. Co. , 825 So. 2d at47. ¶40. A s a r es ul t of the acc i dent that occurr ed on O ct ober 21, 2003, Spann s uf f er ed s er i ous i nj ur i es , i nc l ud i ng a t e a rt o the meni s c us i n h e rl e f tkn e e . Bas e d o n the e xp e r tt e s t i m ony p re se n ted , the trial ju d g e c o n c lu d e d th a t itw o u ld c o st a p p ro x im a tely $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 to su rg ica lly
r epai rthe t eari n Spann’ s m eni s cus and thatSpann had s uf f er ed a f i ve- per centl os s of f unct i on i n herl ef

tknee a nd herent i r e body. A ccor di ng l y, the tr i al j udge aw ar ded Spann $20, 000 f

orf utur e s ur gery and $150, 000 f orherdi s abi l i ty. A w ard for Fu t ure Su rgery ¶41. T her e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence t o supportt he tr i al j udge’ s f i ndi ng thatSpann had a t ear in h er leftm en iscu s an d that the s u rge ry to rep air i t w o u ld c o st ap p rox im ately $ 2 0 , 0 0 0
. D r. G oel t es t i f

i ed thatSpann compl ai ned of pa i n i n herl ef tknee. H e or der ed an M R I , w hi ch
r evea l ed a t eari n the medi al m eni s cus i n herl ef tknee. D r . C r ens haw t es t i f i ed thatSpann pr es ent ed w i th a l i m p be caus e of a n i nj ury t o he rl ef

tknee. D r . G oel al s o t es t i f i ed thatSpann

### Dr. G oel testifiedthat h e cou ld n o lo ng er perfo rm surg eries because of aninjury to 23 

### his hand, but here mains board-c erti fi ed in surger y. 22 cont i nued t o s uf

f erf rom k nee pai n dur i ng the per i od i n w hi ch he tr eat ed herand thatt he
m eni s cus t earneede d t o be s ur gi cal l y r epai r ed by an orthopedic s ur geon. H e adde d t hat Spann had no tb e e n a bl e t o a f f or d a n a pp oi ntmentwi th a n ortho pe di c s ur ge on . D r . G oel
e stim a ted th a t th e s u rg e ry to re p a ir th e m e n isc u s w o u ld c o st a p p ro x im a tely $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 . T h is
es t i m at e w as bas ed on D r . G oel ’ s pas texper i ence as a s ur geon. 23 ¶ 4 2
. T h e m a

jo rity c o n c lu d e s th a t D r. G o e l’s “ m e re ‘g u e ss ’” d o e s n o t co n stitu te su b sta n tial, credi b l e evidence in supp ortof the tr i al cou rt ’s fi nd i ng that the surgery w ou l d co st appr oxi m at el y $20, 000. M aj
. O p. a t¶ 34. T he m aj or i ty f i nds thatD r . G oel ’ s t es t i m ony on this p o int d id no t ev ince th e req u isi te l ev el of certainty. M aj. O p . at ¶ 3 4
. H o w ev er, D r. G oel t es t i f

i ed thathi s opi ni on w as hel d t o a r eas onabl e degr ee of m edi cal cert ai nty. A l s o, h is e stim a te f

o r th e c o st o f th e m e n isc u s s u rg e ry w a s u n re b u tte d
. T h e C ity o f Ja c k so n d id notpr es entany evi dence thats uch a s urgi cal pr ocedu re w ou l d cos tl es s than $20, 000. A l though D r . G oel m ay nothave pr act i ced s urgery forei ghtorni ne yea r s , thati s not
nece s s ar i l y an i nd i cat i on thathe i s any l es s aw ar e of the cos tof

a meni s cus s ur gery. Fur therm or e, as s um i ng ar guendo that D r. G oel’ s est i m at e f orthe surgery i s outdat ed, the co st h as m o st l ikely incre ase d in the p ast eigh t or n ine y ea rs, furth e r ju stify in g the tri al co u rt ’s
a w a rd fo r fu tu re m e d ica l ex p e n se s. D r. G o e l’s te stim o n y c o n stitu tes su b sta n tial, cr e d ib le
e v id e n c e in su p p o rt o f th e $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 a w a rd fo r fu tu re su rg e ry . A c c o rd in g ly , this a w a rd sh o u ld be uphel d.

### 23

A w a rdfo r D isa b ili ty ¶ 4 3
. T h e re is a lso su b sta n tial e v id e n c e to su p p o rt th e trial ju d g e ’s fin d in g th a t, a s a re su lt of the ac ci dent , Spann i s now di s abl ed. D r . G oel t es t i f i ed thatSpann ha d a di s abi l i ty r at i ng of “5 per cent part i al p ermanentl os s of f unct i on” t o herl ef

tknee a nd herbody as a w hol e. H e s t at ed that , i n his m edi cal opi ni on, s he w as unabl e t o w or k beca us e of herknee i nj ur y,
a n d h e a g re e d th a t sh e w a s “ tem p o ra rily to tally d isa b led .” T h e m a jo rity sta tes tha t th e re is no evi dence i n the r ecor d demons tr a t i ng tha tD r . G oel per f or m ed a c om pr ehens i ve eva l uat i on of Spann t o s uppor thi s concl us i on thats he s uf f er ed a f i ve- per centl os s of

f unct i on. M aj
. O p. at¶ 35. I ti s w or th not i ng thatD r . G oel tr eat ed Spann overthe cour s e of ni ne mont hs , dur i ng
w hi ch per i od, Spann vi s i t ed hi m s even t i m es . I n compar i s on, D r . W i l ker s on, a medi cal
e x p e rt fo r th e C ity , o n ly m e t S p a n n o n c e w h e n h e in ter v iew e d h e r fo r a p p ro x im a tely th irty
m i nut es . T he C i ty’ s otherm edi cal expert , D r. W i l l i ams, s aw Spann f ourt i m es overt he
cou rs e of three m on ths. ¶44. T he r ecor d cont ai ns D r . G oel ’ s not at i ons fol l ow i ng each of S pann’ s vi s i t s . T he not es i ndi cat e thatD r . G oel concl uded thatSpann had s uf f er ed a f i ve- per centl os s of

f unct i on on herf i f th vi s i t . T he not es al s o i ndi cat e that , overthe cour s e of the f i r s tf i ve vi s i t s , D r . G oel perf orm ed a ph ysi cal exam i nati on ; t est ed the r ang e of m oti on of di ff erentbo dy part s;
m on i t ored he r pai n level s; ordered and revi ew ed M R Is of her neck, head, spi ne, and left knee; pr es cr i bed medi cat i on; and couns el ed heraboutphys i cal ther apy and s ur gery f orher k n e e . T h e n o te d e tailin g S p a n n ’s f ifth v isit w ith h im sta tes , in r e lev a n t p a rt:

### 24

[ Pat i ent ] atthi s poi ntneeds s ur gi cal i nt ervent i on of [ s i c] the l ef

tknee, f orher cart i l age . . . . [ Pat i ent ] , i f s he does notha ve s ur gery, s he obt ai ned maxi m um m edi cal i m pr ovement , and has pos s i bl e l os s of f unct i on in the ent i r e body es peci al l y i n ar eas of

the l ef tknee. T he [ pat i ent ] has m i l d r es tr i ct i on of r ange o f m o tio n o f th e lef

t k n e e a n d k e e p s a [sic ] ch ro n ic p a in . [P a tien t] is n o t ab le t o putf ul l w ei ghton the l ef

tknee. T her ef

or e, s he i s [ s i c] 5% l os s of f unct i on as the r es ul tof

the l ef tknee.
. . . T her e i s pos s i bl e 5% l os s of f unct i on of

the ent i r e body as a r es ul tof the l ef tknee. ¶45. T he document at i on of D r . G oel ’ s tr eatm ento f Spann ove rthe cour s e of ni ne mont hs dem on strat es hi s basi s of know l edg e forcredi bly fi nd i ng that s he suff ered a fi ve-percentl oss
o f fu n c tio n a s a re su lt o f th e a c c id e n t. ¶46. T he m aj or i ty al s o quot es D r . G oel ’ s s t at ement that Spann neede d t o be eval uat ed by
o th e r sp e c ialists b e fo re c o n c lu d in g th a t sh e c o u ld n o t re tu rn to w o rk . M a j. O p . at ¶ 3 5 . T h is
conce s s i on does notdetr actf r om the f

actthatD r . G oel as s i gned S pann a f i ve- per cent d isa b ili ty ra tin g , sin c e su c h a d isa b ili ty ratin g m ig h t no t pr o h ib it a p e rso n fro m re tu rn in g to
w or k. Fur therm or e, the t es t i m ony o f D r. W i l l i ams and D r . W i l ker s on s t at i ng thatSpann
c o u ld re tu rn to w o rk fu ll-ti m e is n o t n e c e s s a rily in c o n sis ten t w ith a fiv e -p e rc e n t d isa b ili ty
r at i ng ei ther
. T o t he ext entthatther e w er e i ncons i s t enci es betw een the expe r tt es t i m ony pr es ent ed by the C i ty and Spann conc erni ng heri m pai r m ents , thi s C our thas hel d t hat “[ w ] her e ther e i s conf

l i ct i ng evi dence , thi s C our tm us tgi ve gre atdef er ence t o the tr i al j udge’ s f i ndi ngs . ” T

h o m p so n e x re l. T h o m p so n v. L e e Co u n ty S c h . D ist. , 925 So. 2d 57, 62 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng Cit y of Jacks on v. L i

ps ey , 8 3 4 S o . 2 d 6 8 7 , 6 9 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 )). ¶4 7
. In th is ca se, the tr ial co u rt h ea rd the ex p ert test im o n y from b o th side s an d fou n d D r. G oel ’ s t es t i m ony m or e per s uas i ve t han t hatof the C i ty’ s m edi cal expert s . D r . G oel t es t i f i ed

### 25

t o a r eas onabl e degr ee of m edi cal cer t ai nty t hatS pann suf f er ed a f i ve- per centl os s of

f unct i on to h e r e n tire b o d y a n d w a s , the re fo re , d isa b led . H is te stim o n y c o n stitu tes su b sta n tial,
c re d ib le e v id e n c e in su p p o rt o f th e trial c o u rt’s fin d in g tha t S p a n n w a s d isa b led . In tu rn , this f i ndi ng of f acts uppo rt s an aw ar d of damages f

ordi s abi l i ty. T he aw ar d of $150, 000 f

or S p a n n ’s d isa b ili ty is n o t so e x c e ss iv e , ex tra v a g a n t, or o u tra g e o u s th a t th is C o u rt sh o u ld
r ever s e the aw ar d. T her ef or e, i ts houl d be af

f i r m ed. ¶ 4 8
. T h e trial ju d g e p ro p e rly re lied o n th e u n re b u tted tes tim o n y o f D r. G o e l to fin d th a t it
w oul d cos t$20, 000 f

orS pann t o have hert orn m eni s cus sur gi cal l y re pai r ed. T he tr i al j udge al so prope rl y rel i ed o n D r. G oel’ s t est i m on y to f i nd that Span n suff

ered a f i ve-percentl oss
o f fu n c tio n . T h e a w a rd o f $ 1 5 0 ,0 0 0 fo r S p a n n ’s d isa b ili ty is n o t ex c e s s iv e b e y o n d a ll
m eas ur e orfl agr ant l y outr ageous and extr avaga nt . T her ef or e, the tr i al j udge’ s or dergr ant i ng Spann a t ot al aw ar d of

$260, 595. 52 s houl d be af f i r m ed. DI CKI NS ON, KI TC HENS AND P I ER CE , J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.