I nTown Les s e e A s s oc i a t e s , LLC , I nTown Les s e e Se r vi c e s , L LC , I T Tena nt s RB S, 1 L L C , and Ti m othy T ucker

### wil l c oll ec tively be r ef er re d to a s “ InTown. ” 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 9 - CA- 0 1 9 8 7 - S CT I N TO WN L ES S EE A S S O C I A T ES , L L C; I N TO WN LES S EE S ERVICES

, LL C; I T T

ENANT RBS

, LL C; AND TI M OTHY TUCKER
v. M ICHAEL KE

I TH HO W

ARD, I NDI VI DUALLY

, AN D SH AN NO N PO OLE, I

ND I VI DU ALLY
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 25/ 2009 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. TOM I E T. GR EEN COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT F I RS T J UDI CI AL DI S TRI CT A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L A N T : W IL L IA M ‘T R E Y ’ JO N E S , III J OS E P H ANT HONY S CL AF ANI AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : J AM E S AS HL E Y OGDE N J A M E S W . S M IT H , J R . W E NDY MI CH E L L E YUAN NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 06/ 30/ 2011 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. KI TCHEN S , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. M i chae l H ow ar d and Shannon Pool e w er e aw ar ded a f our - m i l l i on- dol l arj ury ver di ct agai ns tI nT ow n, an ext ended- s t ay mot el , f ori nj ur i es each s us t ai ned as vi ct i m s of an arm ed 1

### 2

r obbery i n the mot el
. A ggr i eved, I nT ow n appea l ed. Fi ndi ng no err or , thi s C our taf f i r m s t he trial c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t. F a cts ¶2. M i chae l K ei th H ow ar d and Shannon Pool e had r ent ed a r oom atI nT ow n i n J une 2008,
w h e re the co u p le t em p o raril y resi d ed w h il e w ait ing for a ho m e to be co m e av ail ab le in B e lh a v e n , a re sid e n tial a re a in Ja c k so n , M iss is s ip p i. O n Ju n e 2 7 , 2 0 0 8 , at a p p ro x im a tely 9: 30 p. m . , H ow ar d l ef

tt he m ot el room t o t ake hi s dog f ora w al k. A s he w as re turni ng t o the
r oom , thr ee men bur s tthr ough t he door , demanded money f r om the coupl e, and r ans acke d the r oom . O ne of

the as s ai l ant s hi tH ow ar d i n the f ace w i th a ha nd gun, then poi nt ed the gun
a tP o o l e ’ s h e a d a n d d e ma n d e d mo n e y . Ho wa r d a n d P o o l e d e n i e d h a v i n g mo n e y i n t h e r o o m. U ndet err ed, one of

the as s ai l ant s f

l i pped the mat tr es s of

f the bed, w hi l e Pool e w as on t op of the mat tr es s , caus i ng hert o be pus hed aga i nsta w al l
. T he men f ound betw een $700 a nd $9 00 un der the m at tres s. T he a ssailant s t oo k the m on ey, H ow ard’ s and P oo l e’s dri vers’ l i cens es , and Pool e’ s cel l phone. Fol l ow i ng the al t er cat i on, H ow ar d and Pool e w er e tr eat ed f orvar i ous i nj ur i es thateac h had s us t ai ned dur i ng the att ack. I ni t i al l y, H ow ar d w as tr eat ed fo r b ro k e n b o n e s in h is f a c e a n d n u m e ro u s c o n tu sio n s a n d lac e ra tio n s to h is b o d y . P rio r to tr i al , H ow ar d had t o under go f aci al r econs truct i ve s ur gery. Pool e s us t ai ned contus i ons and brui s es i n t he at t ack, fol l ow ed by sor enes s and seve r e psyc hol ogi cal dam age. H ow ar d and Pool e w er e undert he cont i nui ng car e of physi ci ans and psyc hi atr i s t s . N o arr es t s w er e made i n co nn ect i on w i th the ar m ed robb ery and ph ysi cal assaul t s. ¶3. H ow ar d and Pool e f i l ed thei rj oi ntcompl ai ntagai ns tthe def endant s on J ul y 18, 2008, al l eging: (1) that they w ere i nv i t ees of I nT ow n; (2) that they w ere s eri ou sl y inj ured be cause

### 3

th e d e fe n d a n ts h a d fa iled to fu lfill th e ir jo in t, se v e ra l, an d c o llec tiv e d u ties to u se re a so n a b le
car e and t o t ake a dequat e and r eas onabl e s ecur i ty pr eca ut i ons orm eas ur es t o pr ot ecti nvi t ees o f InT o w n , inclu d ing the p lai n ti ffs, from fore see ab le ha rm an d d an g er, i n clud ing the h arm s u f f e r e d b y P l a i n t i f

f s ; ( 3 ) t h a t , b e f

o r e J u n e 2 7 , 2 0 0 8 , I n T o wn k n e w o rs h o u l d h a v e k n o wn th a t it h a d in a d e q u a te s e c u rity , tha t stra n g e rs, tre sp a ss e rs a n d lo itere rs f re q u e n tly c a m e o n to i t s prope r ty, t hatt he w ooden f ence surr oundi ng par tof i t s prope r ty w as i n di s r epai r , thatt he l ocks on the gues tr oom do ors w er e notw or ki ng pr oper l y, and thatthe pr operty w as not
r eas onabl y s af

e; ( 4) thatI nT ow n had f ai l ed t o r emedy orr epai rthe uns af e condi t i ons and i nadequa ci es of

the pr operty; ( 5) thatI nT ow n had a duty t o t he pl ai nt i f f s t o m ake s ur e that th e fa c ili ties , in c lu d in g a ll c o m m o n a re a s, a s w e ll a s g u e st r o o m s, w e re se c u re , sa fe , an d fit f ort he i rp a r t i c ul a rp urpo s e s , tha tr e a s on a bl e s e c ur i ty mea s ur e s wer e p r ov i de d a nd
m ai nt ai ned, thatthe pr operty, i ncl udi ng the f ence s s urr oundi ng partof the pr operty and the l ocks on al l gu estroom d oor s , w er e pr oper l y m ai nt ai ned, and thatgener al upkeep of t he pr operty w as per f

or m ed; ( 6) t hatI nT ow n had s peci f i c contr ol and author i ty t o m ake
m anage m entdeci s i ons m at er i al t o the per s onal s af ety and sec ur i ty of the pl ai nt i f f s ; ( 7) that I nT ow n had s peci f

i c contr ol and author i ty t o make managementde ci s i ons pe r t ai ni ng t o t he hi r i ng, f i r i ng, and s us pens i on of empl oyees ors ecur i ty atthe mot el ; ( 8) th a t In T o w n ’s a g e n ts and/ orempl oyees had w arr anted and/ orcovena nt ed thatthe pr operty w her e H ow ar d and P o o le w e re sta y in g a s in v itee s w a s s e c u re , sa fe , fitfo r its p a rticu lar p u rp o s e , p ro p e rly
m ai nt ai ned, underpr operupkeep, and r eas onabl e s ecur i ty m eas ur es w er e pr ovi ded and
m aintaine d for the p lai n ti ffs, that sec u ri ty w o u ld b e a d eq u ate to b o th p rotec t th e ro o m w h ere th e p lain tiffs w e re s tay in g , a s w e ll a s c o n tro l an d m a in tain th e p ro p e rty a n d e n fo rc e se c u rity

### 4

pr ocedur es , i ncl udi ng butnotl i m i t ed t o st oppi ng l oi t er er s and t r es pas s er s fr om ent er i ng t he pr operty and/ orr emovi ng tr es pas s er s and l oi t er er s f r om the pr operty; ( 9) thatInT ow n had f ai l e d t o p r ov i de a de qu a t e f i r s ta i d t o the pl a i nt i f

f s a nd ha d f

a i l e d t o i ns truc ti t s e mpl oye es on pr ovi di ng f

i r s tai d t o t he pl ai nt i f

f s ; and ( 10) thatI nT ow n had f ai l ed t o w arn H ow ar d and P o o le o f th e a tm o sp h e re o f v io len c e th a t ex iste d o n a n d a ro u n d th e p ro p e rty , h a d fa iled to p ro v id e n o tice o f th e p rio r c rim e s o c c u rrin g o n a n d a ro u n d th e p ro p e rty , a n d h a d f a ile d to
w arn the pl ai nt i f

f s of the previ ou s as s aul t s and r obber i es occurr i ng on and ar ound t he pr operty. ¶ 4 . T ria l c o m m e n c e d o n S e p tem b e r 2 1 , 2 0 0 9 , a n d th e ju ry re tu rn e d a g e n e ra l v e rd ict in f avorof H ow ar d and Pool e on Sept ember23, 2009. ¶5 . N um er ous Jac ks on pol i ce of f i cer s t es t i f

i e d a ttr i a l r e ga r di ng c a l l s f ors e r vi c e at I nT ow n. O ne of

f i cerhad bee n cal l ed t o I nT ow n Sui t es as m any as thi r ty t i m es t o r es pond t o “arm ed r obber i es , aut o bur gl ar i es , carj acki ngs , j us taut o thef t s ; di ff erentthi ngs of

t hat natur e . . . pri m ar i l y m aj orcr i m es . ” T he of f i cerhad advi s ed t he m anage rof I nT ow n t hatt he
cr i m e pr obl em on t he pr operty coul d be el i m i nat ed by hi r i ng pr of es s i onal s ecur i ty. ¶6. A l i eut enantw i th t he Ja cks on P ol i ce D epart m entt es t i f i ed t hat“I nT ow n S ui t es . . . had a numberof

pr obl ems on thei rpr operty. Speci f i cal l y they’ ve had r obber i es . T hey’ ve had bur gl ar i es . C ar s have be en s t ol en. Ther e’ s pr os t i tut i on, drugs on the pr operty; j us tanythi ng yo u can think of. ” T he l i eutenant t est i fi ed thathe w as “adv i sed t hat [ InT ow n] had a cou rt esy off i cer . H e w as nota s ecur i ty of f i cer , nora s ecur i ty gua r d .
. . . [ T ] he di f f er ence i s a court es y of

f i cer , he w as notarm ed and w as notpr oper l y tr ai ned t o handl e any type s i tuat i ons thatw ou l d com e up. H e w as onl y t o cal l the pol i ce . . . i f he s aw s om ethi ng ther e on the

### 5

pr operty cr i m i nal i n natur e. ” T he l i eut enantal s o t es t i f i ed thathe had t ol d the managerof InT o w n that o ff- d u ty o ffi ce rs “ w o u ld b e m o re th an w il li n g to co m e o u t th ere a n d w o rk o ff duty af t erw e gotoff

w or k t o pat r ol t he pr operty . . . . ” T he l i eut enantf ur thert es t i f

i ed that h e h a d i n s tru c t e d t h e ma n a g e rt h a tI n To wn s h o u l d b e i n f o r mi n g i t s c u s t o me r s o f

th e p r o b l e ms t h a th a d b e e n o c c u rr i n g o n th e p r o p e r ty , a n d th a tth e ma n a g e rh a d i n d i c a t e d th a tI n T o wn
w oul d have no c us t om er s i f s uch a w arni ng w er e gi ven. ¶7 . A no the ro f

f i c e rt e s t i f

i e d tha th e was a p a r to f the “ del t a s t r i ke f

or ce, ” w hi ch t he J acks on Pol i ce D epart m enthad f or m ed i n an ef

f or tt o det ercr i m es al on g the I nt er s t at e 55
c o rrid o r. H e tes tified th a t In T o w n S u ites w a s a targ e t ar e a th a t th e d e lta s trik e fo rc e w a s to patr ol
. H e expl ai ned t hatt he del t a str i ke f or ce’ s duty w as t o “go thr ough [ I nT ow n’ s ] parki ng l ot , m ake s ur e ther e w as no car s br oke i nt o, no i l l egal happeni ngs on the st ree t s oron the p ro p e rty itse lf. M o stly w e w e re th e re to try to a n sw e r c a lls a n d b e q u ick a s p o ss ib le in
r es pondi ng t o c al l s thatmay happe n a tI nT ow n Sui t es orotherl ocat i ons . ” H e al s o t es t i f i ed that , w hen the t as k f

or ce w as on I nT ow n pr operty, no cr i m i nal a ct i vi ty tr ans pi r ed. H e f ur ther tes tified th a t h e h a d in fo rm e d th e m a n a g e r o f In T o w n th a t th e re w a s a c rim e p ro b lem o n its p ro p e rty a n d th a t “th e y sh o u ld try to g o a h e a d a n d g e t a p ro fe ss io n a lly tra in e d se c u rity
s ervi ce” t o s ol ve the cr i m e pr obl em on t he pr operty. ¶8. C har l es C ampbel l , t he pr operty m anage rof I nT ow n S ui t es i n J acks on on the dat e that H o w a rd a n d P o o le w e re a ttac k e d in th e ir ro o m , tes tified th a t o n e o f I n T o w n ’s d u ties w a s “ to
ens ur e thatcus t om er s w er e pr ovi ded ade quat e pr ot ect i on fr om cr i m e t hatw oul d occuron the p ro p e rty .” H e a lso tes tified th a t h e w a s in c o n tac t w ith h is re g io n a l m a n a g e r o n a d a ily b a sis and t hathe of

t en i nf or m ed r egi onal and corpor at e of f i ci al s thatther e w as a cr i m e pr obl em

### 6

atthe J acks on pr operty. C ampbel l t es t i f i ed t hathe had a s ked hi s r egi onal m anage rt o pr ovi de
s ecur i ty atthe J acks on l ocat i on of I nT ow n Sui t es on m or e than one oc cas i on, and t hatt he
r egi onal m anage ral w ays had t ol d hi m thatInTow n had i ns uf f i ci entf unds t o hi r e arm ed
s ecur i ty. ¶9. Sever al expertw i tnes s es a l s o w er e cal l ed t o t es t i f y. K enneth G oodrum , a comm ander
w ith th e Jac k so n P o li ce D ep artm en t, w as a cc ep ted w ith o u t objecti o n as a p lai n ti ffs’ exp ert “i n the ar ea of

s ecur i ty w i th emphasi s in t he ar ea of pr emi s es . ” C om m anderG oodrum tes tified th a t h e h a d re v iew e d “ a ll th e d o c u m e n ta tio n a n d th e e v id e n c e th a t w a s g iv e n to [ hi m , ] as w el l as the depos i t i ons and of f ens e r eport s ” i n thi s cas e. C om m anderG oodrum had
c o m p lete d a c rim e h isto ry re p o rt o f th e Ja c k so n lo c a tio n o f In T o w n , a n d w a s a b le to det erm i ne tha t , i n the tw o- and- a- hal f
- yearper i od pr i ort o H ow ar d and Pool e’ s i nj ur i es , “ei ght
arm ed robb eri es, 32 auto theft s, 55 auto burgl ari es, s i x ho l d-up al arm s, 15 si m ple as saul t s .

. . thr ee a r m ed r obber i es of bus i nes s es , f

ourm en w i th a gun, tw o vandal i s m s , 48 di s turbance s and 12 thr eat s ” had oc curr ed on the property of I nT ow n. W i thoutobj ect i on, C om m ander G oodrum t es t i f

i ed thatthe as s aul tof

M i chae l H ow ar d a nd Shannon Pool e “w as pr event abl e. A n d m y o p in io n is th a t if the y w o u ld h a v e h ire d o ff-d u ty p o lice o ffic e rs o r a rm e d se c u rity guar ds t o patr ol t hat parki ng l otand patr ol thei rpr operty, i tw oul d have be en abl e t o be pr event ed. ” ¶10. Pl ai nt i f

f s depos ed D avid G roves, a regi on al d i rect or of o perat i ons f or I nT ow n. G r oves t es t i f

i ed thatappr oxi m at el y tw el ve I nT ow n propert i es have a r m ed s ecur i ty on t he p ro p e rty , an d th a t th e d e c isio n to p ro v id e a rm e d se c u rity g u a rd s a t a p a rticu lar p ro p e rty is decided o n a case-by-case basi s. G roves s ai d that the gen eral m anag er w ou l d h ave to r equ est

### 7

th a t ar m e d se c u rity b e p ro v id e d , a n d the n the d e c isio n to p ro v id e se c u rity p e rso n n e l w o u ld b e u p to In T o w n ’s co rpo rate o ffi cials. P art of G rov es’s d ep o sit ion w as rea d into the rec o rd attr i al
. I nT ow n obj ect ed, butthe tr i al c our tr eas oned that“i ts t i l l i s a partof thatt es t i m ony
w hi ch s how s noti ce w i th r ef er ence – and i tgoes t o the i s s ue of f or es eea bi l i ty, w hi ch i s an i s s u e i n th i s c a s e . An d I th i n k i tp r o b a b l y d e a l s wi th th e i s s u e o f s e c u r i ty i n i t s e n t i r e ty . As
s uch, I ’ m goi ng t o al l ow the t es t i m ony w i th r ef er ence t o . . . G r oves . ” ¶1 1 . T h e p lai n ti ffs o ffered an ec o n o m ist , w h o test if ied reg ard ing P o o le’s claim for fu ture l os s of w ages . T he ec onom i s topi ned thatPool e’ s f utur e l oss of

i ncome r anged f

r om $574, 209 t o $1, 922, 589. I nT ow n di d notobj ectattr i al t o the t es t i m ony orm ethodol ogy of the econo m i st . D i nesh G oel, M . D . , a bo ard- cert i fi ed gen eral s urgeon and accep t ed ex p ert i n the f i el ds of gener al sur gery and f

ami l y m edi ci ne, t es t i f

i ed attr i al
. D r . G oel had tr eat ed both H ow ar d and P ool e f ort hei ri nj ur i es sus t ai ned af t erbei ng att acke d atI nT ow n. D r . G oel t es t i f i ed thatH ow ar d w as tr eat ed f ora f r actur ed che ek bone a nd orbi tb on e o f hi s l ef teye,
w h ich re q u ir ed m u lt iple su rge ri es. D r. G o el did n o t p erfo rm H o w ard ’s su rge ri es; h o w ev er, he had r evi ew ed the s ur gi cal r ecor ds
. D r. G oel f ur thert es t i f

i ed thatH ow ar d w oul d need add i t i on al surger i es t o co rr ecttho se i njur i es com plet el y. D r. G oel s ai d that the est i m at ed co st
o f H o w a rd ’s fu tu re s u rg e ry w o u ld b e b e tw e e n $ 5 ,0 0 0 a n d $ 8 ,0 0 0 . ¶1 2 . D r. G o el test if

ied that, in ad d it ion to H o w ard ’s b ad ly b rok en ch ee k b o n e a n d o rb it b o n e, he h ad su ffered a b rok en jaw , a h ea d injury , an d a b u lging d isk. A d d it ion all y , H o w ard had s uf f er ed pos t - tr aumat i c s tr es s di s or dera s a r es ul tof the att ack a tI nT ow n. A s a r es ul tof his i njuri es a n d p o st- tr au m ati c stress d isord er, H ow ard had head aches, nightm ares , sl eep loss , and exhi bi t ed s ym pt om s o f depres s i on, f orw hi ch D r . G oel had r ef err ed H ow ar d t o a

### 8

p sy ch iatri st f

o r trea tm e n t. D r. G o el furthe r t esti fi ed that h e d id n o t “ex p ec t [ H o w ard ’s
s ym pt oms ] t o ge tc ur e d, b utthe y’ r e g oi ng t o w a x a nd [ w a ne ]
. The y’ r e g oi ng t o ge tbet t er att i m es , they’ r e goi ng t o getw or s e att i m es , buthe’ s goi ng t o l i ve w i th i t . ” ¶ 1 3 . R e g a rd in g D r. G o e l’s fu tu re tre a tm e n t o f H o w a rd , h e tes tified th a t H o w a rd w o u ld “nee d a f ol l ow - up on a mont hl y bas i s and eve n quart er l y l at eron, ” and thatthe cos tof that treatm ent w ou l d b e ap proxim at el y $ 3, 00 0 to $4,000 p er year, plus the co stof m edicat i on s. ¶14. D r . G oel t es t i f

i ed that Pool e had s uf

f er ed head, back, and neck i nj ur i es as a r es ul tof b e in g a ttack ed at InT o w n o n Ju n e 2 7 , 2 0 0 8 . H e sa id tha t he in it ial ly h ad tr ea ted h er w ith p a in m e d ica tio n s, an d late r re fe rre d h e r to a p sy c h iatris t fo r tre a tm e n t o f h e r p o st-tra u m a tic
s tr es s di s or der , heada ches , ni ght m ar es , and s l eep l os s . D r . G oel s ai d thatPool e w oul d need to h av e m ed ical foll o w -up s o n a re g u lar ba sis, an d that the fu ture c o st o f h er m ed ical care
w oul d be appr oxi m at el y $1, 000 t o $2, 000 peryear . Fur ther , D r . G oel s ai d thathercondi t i on is “g o ing to w ax an d [w an e], b u t i t’ s n o t go ing to g o aw ay . It ’s be en m o re tha n a y ea r she ’s been hurt i ng and s uf

f er i ng w i th i t . I thi nk s he’ s goi ng t o s t ay w i th i t . ” ¶ 1 5 . K rish a n G u p ta, M .D ., a p sy c h iat ri s t, t re a te d H o w a rd a n d P o o le f o r p o st-tra u m a tic
s tr es s di s or der
. D r . G upt a t est i fi ed t hathi s i ni t i al di agnos i s of H ow ar d w as “adj us t m ent d i s o r d e ra n d a c u t e s tr e s s d i s o r d e r . As t i me p r o g r e s s e s , we c a n f i n d th e s i g n s a n d s y mp t o ms o f p o s t tr a u m a tic s tr e s s d is o rd e r. A n d w e g a v e a d ia g n o s is o f p o s t tr a u m a tic s tr e s s d is o rd e r.” D r . G upt a al s o t es t i f

i ed thatH ow ar d w as “doi ng a l i t t l e bett er , buts t i l l needs cont i nuous p sy c h o th e ra p y a n d m e d ica tio n m a n a g e m e n t.” D r. G u p ta fu rth e r te stifie d th a t p o st-tra u m a tic stre ss d iso rd e r “ is a p sy c h o lo g ica l sc a r in th e b ra in . T h is w ill n o t g o a w a y . It’s n o t a

### 9

phys i cal i nj ury you can s ee l i ke [ H ow ar d’ s ] f ace w as r econs truct ed, butps ychol ogi cal cannot be. So t hey’ r e goi ng t o be ther e as l ong as [ H ow ar d] i s l i vi ng on thi s earth. ” ¶16. D r . G upt a s ai d that “i n the i ni t i al eval uat i on [ Pool e] w as very anxi ous , s o I gave he r a di agnos i s of

acut e s tr es s di s or der
. A s the t i m e pr ogr es s ed as w e under s t and more about [ Pool e] , w e gave a di agnos i s of pos ttr aumat i c s tr es s di s or derl at eron. ” D r . G upt a s ai d t hat P o o le h a d su ffe re d fro m p a n ic a ttac k s, b u t th a t m o st o f th e p a n ic a ttac k s w e re fro m h e r p o sttr aumat i c s tr es s di s or der
. Fur ther , D r . G upt a t es t i f i ed thatPool e w as “notm aki ng m uch p ro g re ss . S h e n e e d s m o re c o u n se lin g , an d sh e n e e d s m o re in ten siv e th e ra p ies w h ich w ill hel p hert o com e outand func t i on l i ke [ H ow ar d] i s doi ng r i ghtnow . [ H ow ar d] i s hol di ng a jo b a t th is tim e. [ P o o le] is no t able to d o that at th is t im e a t al l. ” H e a lso sa id tha t P o o le
w o u ld n e e d c o n tin u e d tr e a tm e n t w ith m e d ic a tio n . ¶17. D r . G upt a t es t i f

i ed that , over the l i f

et i m e of both H ow ar d and Pool e, the cos t of eac h in d iv id u a l’ s p s y c h ia tr ic tr e a tm e n t w o u ld b e , a t a m in im u m , $ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 . ¶1 8. A tt he cl os e of the p l a i nt i f

f s ’ c a s e - i n- c hi ef

, I nT ow n r es t ed w i t hout pr es ent i ng evi dence
. T he j ury r eturned a gener al ve r di cti n the amount of $2, 000, 000 f

orH ow ar d and $ 2 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 fo r P o o le
. I s s ues ¶19 . O n ap peal, InT ow n rai ses the fol l ow i ng i ssues: I . W hetherthe tr i al c our te rr ed i n de nyi ng I nT ow n’ s mot i on f ordi r ect ed v e r d i c ta n d mo t i o n f

o rJNOV. I I . W hetherI nT ow n ow ed a duty t o Pl ai nt i f f s t o w arn them of

the al l eged gener al i zed “ atm osphere of vi ol ence ” on and a r ound the J acks on p ro p e rt y . I I I . W hetherthe cumul at i ve ef f ectof t he admi s s i on of

i rr el evantand i nadmi s s i bl e evi dence w as hi ghl y pr ej udi ci al t o I nT ow n.

### 10

I V . W het he rthe tr i a l c ou r te rr e d b y r e f us i ng I nTown’ s c ompa r a t i ve neg l i gen ce i nst ruct i on s. V . W het her t he tr i al courtf ai l ed t o compl y w i th the s t atut ory cap on n o n e c o n o m ic d a m a g e s; a ltern a tiv e ly , w h e th e r th e trial c o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g In T o w n ’s re q u e s t f o r r e m ittit u r. D i s cus s i on I
. W hetherthe tr i alcour ter r ed i n denyi ng I nTow n’s m ot i on f

ordi r ected ve r di ct

and mot i o n f o rJ NO V. ¶20. A t the cl os e of al l of the evi dence , I nT ow n m oved f or a di r ect ed ver di ct on the i s s ue of caus a t i on . I nTown be ga n i t s a r gu mentw i th the f ol l owi ng s t a t e ment : “ I r e a l i z e t he p lai n ti ffs ha v e e stab li sh ed a d u ty w as o w ed , an d that’s ad m itted. B u t I b eli ev e the p lai n ti ffs have f ai l ed t o es t abl i s h .
. . thatr egar dl es s of s ecur i ty thatw as pr es entorr egar dl es s of any act i ons thatw er e t aken, the pl ai nt i f f f ai l ed t o s how thatany addi t i onal securi ty orany addi t i onal act s coul d have pr event ed the event fr om happeni ng. ” The tr i al courtdeni ed I nT ow n’ s m ot i on f

ordi r ect ed ver di ct . I nT ow n fi l ed a post - tr i al “M ot i on f orJ udgm ent N otw i ths t andi ng the V erdi ct , ori n the al t ernat i ve, M ot i on f ora N ew T r i al , or , i n the al t ernat i ve, M ot i on f

ora R emi t t i tura nd/ orM ot i on t o A m end the V er di ct , ” ar gui ng that“[ t ] he ju ry ’s v e rd ict re fle c ted a fin d in g th a t th e a lleg e d in a d e q u a c y o f s e c u rity w a s th e p ro x im a te
cause o f the P l ai nti ff

s’ [ i njur i es] ” beca use “t he ev i den ce pres ented attri al f ai l ed t o est abli sh thatthi s al l eged i nadequa t e s ecur i ty w as the s ol e ca us e of the s ubj ecti nci dent
. ” The t r i al
c o u rt d e n ie d In T o w n ’s p o s t- tr ia l m o tio n . ¶ 2 1 . O n a p p e a l, In T o w n a rg u e s th a t H o w a rd a n d P o o le “ fa ile d to m e e t th e ir b u rd e n to
es t abl i s h thatthe pr oxi m at e ca us e of thei ras s aul tw as the fai l ure of I nT ow n t o empl oy an arm ed, of

f
- duty J PD of

f i cert o pr ovi de s ecur i ty att he Ja cks on prope r ty. ” I nT ow n ar gues t hat

### 11

t he pl a i nt i f

f s “ w e r e r e qu i r e d t o p r of f e rs uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o e s t a bl i s h tha tthe f a i l ur e of I nT ow n t o empl oy an arm ed, off
- duty JPD off

i cerw as a subs t ant i al f

act ori n br i ngi ng about thei ri nj ur i es , and had InTow n em pl oyed an arm ed, off
- duty J PD of

f i certhe harm w oul d not have oc curr ed. ” F urt her, I nT ow n al l eges that“[ t ] he onl y r ecor d evi dence on the i s s ue of
w hetherI nT ow n’ s f

ai l ur e t o empl oy an arm ed, of f
- duty of f i cerw as the pr oxi m at e caus e of Pl ai nt i f f s ’ as s aul ti s the conc l us ory s t at ementof Pl ai nt i f f s ’ pr of f er ed ‘ expert ’ J PD O f

f i cer K enneth G oodrum . ” I nT ow n ar gues t hatt he pl ai nt i f f s fa i l ed t o m eett hatbur den; ther ef or e, i tw as ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng t he ver di ct . W e di s agr ee a nd af f i r m the tr i al
courton thi s i s s ue. ¶22. “The st andar d of r evi ew f ort he deni al of a mot i on f ora j udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng the verdi ct(JN O V ) i s de novo
. ” U . S. A uto. A s s ’n (U

SA A) v. L is anby , 47 So. 3d 1172, 1176 ( M i s s . 2010) ( ci t i ng U

.S . Fid . a n d G u a r. Co . o

f Miss . v. Ma rtin , 998 So
. 2d 95 6, 96 4 (M i ss. 2 0 0 8 )). “ A m o tio n fo r JN O V is a c h a llen g e to th e leg a l su ffic ien c y o f th e e v id e n c e , an d th is C o u rt w ill a ff

ir m th e d e n ia l o f a JN O V if th e re is s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt th e v e rd ic t.” A dco ck v. Miss. T

ra n sp . Co m m ’n , 981 So. 2d 942, 948 ( M i s s . 2008) ( ci t i ng J o h n so n v. S t. D om ini cs - Jacks on Mem ’l Hos p. , 967 So. 2d 20, 22 ( M i s s . 2007))
. “T hi s C our tw i l l cons i der th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e a p p e llee , g iv in g th e p a rty th e b e n e fit o f a ll f avor abl e i nf

er ence [ s ] thatm ay be r eas onabl y dra w n f r om the evi dence
. ” Spo tlite Ska ting R ink, I nc. v. B ar nes ex r el

. B ar nes , 988 So. 2d 364, 368 ( M i s s . 2008) ( quot i ng A la. G r eat S. R . R . Co. v. L ee , 826 So. 2d 1232, 1235 ( M i s s . 2002))
. “I n ess ence , j udgm ent s as a m att er of l aw pr es entboth the tr i al courtand the appe l l at e courtw i th the sa m e ques t i on – w hether the ev i den ce, as appli ed to the elem ents of a party’s cas e, i s ei ther so i nd i sputabl e, or so

### Thes e arm ed robberie s oc cur re d onN ov ember 6, 2007, J anuary 3, 2008, and May 2 

### 23, 2008. 12 def i ci ent , thatthe nece s s i ty of a tr i erof f acthas been obvi at ed. ” USA A , 47 So. 3d at1176 ( quot i ng W

hite v. Stew m an , 9 3 2 S o . 2 d 2 7 , 3 2 ( M i s s . 2 0 0 6 ) )
. “ [ T] h i s Co u r ta p p l i e s th e s a me s ta n d a r d o f

r e v ie w a s it a p p lie s w h e n re v ie w in g th e d e n ia l o f d ir e c te d v e rd ic t o r J N O V .” S o la n k i v. E rv in , 2 1 S o . 3 d 5 5 2 , 5 5 7 (M is s . 2 0 0 9 ). ¶ 2 3 . T h e s u b sta n tial e v id e n c e su b m itt e d b y th e p lain tiffs w a s m o re th a n leg a lly su ffic ien t,
a n d i n c l u d e d a s t i p u l a t i o n th a tI n To wn ’ s ma n a g e me n ta n d e mp l o y e e s h a d b e e n th e v i c t i ms of thr ee a r m ed r obberi es thathad cl os el y pr ece ded thes e att acks
. I nT ow n r es t ed w i thout 2 cal l i ng a s i ngl e w i tnes s t o r ebutthe pl ai nt i f f s ’ s ubs t ant i al l ay and expe r tw i tnes s t es t i m ony. B y the present at i on of

thei rl ay and e xpertw i tnes s es , the pl ai nt i f f s had cr eat ed a que s t i on s uf f i ci entf orthe j ury’ s det erm i nat i on. T he evi dence , a s a ppl i ed t o the pl ai nt i f f s ’ c as e, i s not

“ s o in d is p u ta b le , o r s o d e fi c ie n t, th a t th e n e c e s s ity o f a tr ie r o f f a c t h a s b e e n o b v ia te d .” USA A , 4 7 S o . 3 d a t 1 1 7 6 . I I
. W hetherInTow n ow ed a dut y to the plai nt i

f f s t o w ar n them of

the al l eged ge ner al iz ed “atm os pher e of vi ol ence ” on and around the Jac ks on pr oper t y. ¶2 4 . InT o w n arg u es for th e first tim e o n ap p ea l that the tr ial co u rt erred in g iving a jury i ns truct i on t hatpr ovi ded thatthe j ury coul d fi nd agai ns tI nT ow n i f i tf ound thatI nT ow n had f a i l e d “ t o wa r n M i c h a e l Ke i th Ho wa r d a n d S h a n n o n P o o l e o f th e e x i s t e n c e o f

a k n o wn d a n g e ro u s c o n d iti o n .” In T o w n a rg u e s th a t Ju ry In stru c tio n N u m b e r 1 1 “ im p ro p e rly perm i t t ed the j ury t o f

i nd I nT ow n l i abl e i f

the j ury agr eed w i th P l ai nt i f f s ’ novel t heory and

### 13

bel i eved thatI nT ow n breached a dut y t o w arn Pl ai nt i f f s of the gene r al i zed ‘ atm os pher e of vi ol ence ’ on and ar ound t he J acks on pr operty. ” ¶25. T hi s Court“ has he l d thatunl es s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s ar e af f ect ed, i s s ues notpr es ent ed t o the tr i al j udge ar e pr ocedur al l y barr ed f r om bei ng r ai s ed f

orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe al
. ” Ill. Cen t . R . R . Co. v. B

yrd , 44 So. 3d 943, 948 ( M i s s . 2010) ( ci t i ng D o ra v. S ta te , 9 86 S o. 2d 9 1 7 , 9 2 5 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 )). Into w n d id n o t m ak e a co n tem p o ran eo u s o b jecti o n to jury instruction n u m b er 1 1 . InT o w n w as affo rde d a n o p p o rtu n ity to o b ject t o the p lai n ti ffs’ th eo ry o f liab ili ty an d su p p o rtin g jur y ins tru c tio n b e fo re the tri a l co u rt; h o w e v e r, In T o w n fa iled to avai l i t s el f

of t hatoppo rtun i t y, and i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed f r om att empt i ng t o do s o f ort he fi rs t tim e o n a p p e a l. I

d. III. W h e th e r th e c u m u la tive e ffec t o f th e a dm iss io n o

f irre lev a n t a n d

in a dm iss ib le evi dence w as highl

y pr ej udi ci alt o I

nTow n. ¶26. I nT ow n ar gues thatt he “t ri al co urterr ed i n admi t t i ng t es t i m ony r egar di ng ( a) the pr of i t abi l i ty of

the J acks on pr operty; ( b) arm ed se cur i ty pr ovi ded by I nT ow n atot her l ocat i ons acr oss t he Sout h w i thoutr equi r i ng Pl ai nt i f f s t o l ay a pr operf

oundat i on thatt he ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng t hos e otherpr opert i es w er e s i m i l art o the ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng the J acks on pr operty; and ( c) the al l eged mot i ve/r eas on w hy InTow n di d not
e m p lo y a n a rm e d , o ff

-d u ty J P D o ff

ic e r a t th e J a c k s o n p ro p e rt y .” ¶27. “The st andar d of r evi ew r egar di ng adm i ssi on o r excl us i on of evi dence i s abus e of di s cr et i on. W her e err ori nvol ves the admi s s i on orexcl us i on of evi dence , thi s Court‘ w i l l not
r ever s e unl es s the err oradver s el y af f ect s a s ubs t ant i al r i ghtof a party. ’ ” W

hitten v. Cox , 799

### InTown objected t o plaintif fs ’ c ounse l l ea ding t

he wi tne ss during that l ineof 3 

### qu estion ing , but failed to ob ject to th e sub stance o f the questio ns an d an swers.

14 So. 2d 1, 13 ( M i s s . 2000) ( quot i ng Floyd v. Cit y of Cr ys tal Springs , 749 So. 2d 110, 113 (M is s . 1 9 9 9 ))
. A
. W hetherthe tr i alcour ter r ed i n al l ow i ng H ow ar d and P ool e to of

f erevi dence r egar di ng the f

i nanci alcondi t i on/

pr of i tabi l i t y of the Jac ks on pr oper t

y. ¶2 8 . InT o w n arg u es that it w as h igh ly p rejud ici al for the tr ial co u rt to all o w the p lai n ti ffs t o adduce t es t i m ony r egar di ng the pr of i t abi l i ty of

I nT ow n f

orthe yearpre cedi ng t he arm ed
r obbery of

H ow ar d a nd Pool e. H ow ever , I nT ow n f ai l ed t o make a cont empora neous obj ect i on t o thi s l i ne of ques t i oni ng at t r i al
. O url ongs t andi ng cas e l aw i s cl ear“thatt he 3 fa ilu re to m a k e a c o n te m p o ra n e o u s o b je c tio n to th e e v id e n c e w a iv e s th e is s u e o n a p p e a l.” H y u n da i Mo to r A m e ric a v. A p p lew h ite , 5 3 S o . 3 d 7 4 9 , 7 5 5 ( M i s s . 2 0 1 1 )
. Be c a u s e I n T o wn d id n o t m a k e a c o n tem p o ra n e o u s o b jec tio n to th e p lain tiffs’ e licitin g In T o w n ’s p ro fitab ili ty f orthe yea r2007, i ti s pr ocedur al l y barr ed f r om pur s ui ng the i s s ue f orthe f i r s tt i m e on a p p e a l. B
. W hetherthe tr i alcour ter r ed i n al l ow i ng H ow ar d and P ool e to of

f erevi dence r egar di ng ar m ed s ecur i t y pr ovi ded by I

nT ow n atotherl ocat i ons acr os s the So u th w ith o u t r e q u ir in gth e m to la y a p r o p e rfo u n da tio n fo rs u c h e v id e n c e . ¶29. Por t i ons of the depos i t i on of D avi d G r oves w er e r ead i n the pr es ence of the j ury, over I nT ow n’ s obj ect i on. T he tr i al courtal l ow ed the evi dence t o be pres ent ed t o the j ur y, re a so n in g th a t “it still is a p a rt o f th a t t e stim o n y w h ich sh o w s n o tice w ith re fe re n c e – a n d it g o e s to th e iss u e o f fo re se e a b ili ty , w h ic h is a n iss u e in th is c a se . A n d I th in k it p ro b a b ly d e a ls w ith th e iss u e o f s e c u rity in its e n tirety . A s s u c h , I’m g o in g to a llo w th e tes tim o n y w ith
re fe re n c e to . . . G ro v e s .” A s s u m in g , ar guendo , th a t th e ad m iss io n o f th is e v id e n c e w a s in

### Appel lants ’ m oti on for direc te d verdic t wa s ba se d on ca usati on, s ee supra ¶ 22. 4 

### 15 e rro r, th e re m a in in g e v id e n c e o f f o re se e a b ili ty a n d n e e d fo r a d d iti o n a l se c u rity w a s c lea rly
es t abl i s hed, and w as notco nt es t ed by the appe l l ant s . T he admi s s i on of thatpor t i on of 4 G ro v e s ’s d e p o s itio n d id n o t a ff e c t a s u b s ta n tia l r ig h t b e lo n g in g to I n T o w n . See W hitten , 799 So. 2d at13. C
. W hetherthe tr i alcour ter r ed i n al l ow i ng H ow ar d and P ool e to of

f erevi dence r egar di ng the al l eged m ot i ve/ reason w hy I

nTow n di d notem

pl oy an ar m ed, of f

- dut y JPD of f i ceratthe Jac ks on pr oper t y. ¶30. I nT ow n ar gues t hatpl ai nti ff s’ counse l i m pr oper l y ar gued t hatInTow n’ s m ot i ve f or notempl oy i ng an arm ed s ecur i ty of f i cerw as beca us e I nT ow n di d notw antt o pr ovi de the funding for s uch an o ff i cer. InT o w n a rgu es f or the fi rs tt i m e on app eal that pl ai nti ff s’
couns el m ade i nappr opr i at e comm ent s dur i ng ope ni ng a r gum ent s . I nT ow n di d notm ake a
c o n tem p o ra n e o u s o b

jec tio n to p lain tiffs’ c o u n se l’s o p e n in g a rg u m e n t. ¶ 3 1 . In T o w n a lso c o m p lain s o f th e fo llo w in g q u e stio n s b y p lain tiffs’ c o u n se l a n d C h a rlie C am pb el l ’s res po nses: Q
. D i d [ I nT ow n’ s r egi onal m anage r ] everas k abouts ecur i ty atthe pr operty? A
. N o . W e talk e d a b o u t it , b u t I m e a n it re a lly d id n ’t d o a n y g o o d to talk abouti tbeca us e the ans w erw as al w ays w e don’ thave the money.

. . . Q
. W hat , i f

anythi ng, di d you as k f

r om corpor at e af

t erthe s econd r obbery? A
. I as ked i f

t hey coul d ei thergetm e a bul l etproof gl as s up t her e orarm ed s ecur i ty. Q
. W hatw as corpor at e’ s r es pons e t o yourr eques tas the mannerof InT ow n S uit es? A
. W e d o n ’t h a v e th e m o n e y fo r th a t.

. . . Q
. A ll ri g h t. Is th ere a n y d o u b t i n y o u r m ind that the in form ati o n y o u ’re s endi ng t o corpor at e, thati t ’ s gett i ng ther e? A
. O h, yes , i tw as gett i ng ther e.

### 16

Q
. H ow do you know i t ’ s gett i ng ther e? A
. B eca us e of

di s cus s i ons w i th m y bos s atthe t i m e. Q
. W hatdi s cus s i ons w er e you havi ng? A. I me a n I wo u l d a s k – i f h e ’ d c o me b y , I ’ d a s k , y o u k n o w, wh a ta r e we goi ng t o do aboutsec ur i ty. A nd hi s answ erw as al w ays w e don’ thave the money, you know
. A nd I f i nal l y as ked do w e have the money f or m y li fe, yo u k n o w , an d d idn ’tg et an an sw er. InT ow n fai l ed to i nterpo se a con t em po raneou s object i on t o thatl i ne of quest i on i ng . B ecause of i t s f ai l ur e t o make a c ont empora neous obj ect i on t o the openi ng s t at ementorthe ques t i ons on cr os s - exami nat i on, I nT ow n w ai ves the i s s ue on appe al ; I nT ow n i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed fr o m ra is in g th is is s u e . H yundai , 53 So. 3d at755. I V
. W hetherthe tr i alcour ter r ed by r ef us i ng I nTow n’s com

parat i ve negl igence i nstruct i on s. ¶3 2 . InT o w n arg u es that it w as en ti tl ed to a co m p ara ti v e fau lt instruction b ec au se the ju ry coul d have appor t i oned the Pl ai nt i f f s “s om e f aul tf orthei rpe r s onal i nj ur i es . ” I nT ow n ar gues thatH ow ar d and Pool e s houl d have i m m edi at el y gi ven thei rm oney and pos s es s i ons t o t he thr ee a s s ai l ant s w ho had br oken i nt o thei rr oom , r atherthan i ns i s t i ng t hatt hey di d nothave
m oney. I nT ow n ar gues thatthe pl ai nt i f f s ’ i nj ur i es w oul d have be en l es s s ever e i f they had d o n e a s th e ro b b e rs h a d in s is te d
. ¶33. “I t i s w el l s ett l ed that j ury i ns truct i ons gener al l y ar e w i thi n the di s cr et i on of the tr i al
c o u rt , s o th e s ta n d a rd o f r e v ie w fo r t h e d e n ia l o f j u ry in s tru c tio n s is a b u s e o f d is c re tio n .” N e w e ll v. S ta te , 49 So. 3d 66, 73 ( M i s s . 2010)
. “J ury i ns truct i ons m us tf ai r l y a nnounce the l aw of the ca s e and notcr eat e an i nj us t i ce a gai ns tthe def endant
. T hi s rul e i s s um m ed up as fo llo w s: ‘In o th e r w o rd s, if a ll i n stru c tio n s ta k e n a s a w h o le f a ir ly , b u t n o t n e c e ss a rily

### 17

per f ect l y, announce the appl i cabl e rul es of l aw , no err orr es ul t s . ’ ” D a v is v . S ta te , 18 So. 3d 842, 847 ( M i s s . 2009) ( quot i ng Mila n o v. S ta te , 7 9 0 S o . 2 d 1 7 9 , 1 8 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 )). ¶ 3 4 . M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 1 1 -7 -1 5 p ro v id e s th a t: I n a l l a ct i ons he r eaf

t erbr oughtf

orpe r s onal i nj ur i es , orw here such i nj ur i es have r es ul t ed i n death, or f ori nj ury t o pr operty, the f actthatthe per s on i nj ur ed, orthe ow nerof the pr operty, orper s on havi ng contr ol overthe p roperty m ay hav e been gu i l ty of cont ri bu t ory negli gen ce shal l not bar a r ecove r y, butdamages shal l b e d i m i ni s hed by the j ury i n pr opor t i on t o the amount of

negl i gence attr i but abl e t o the per son i njur ed, orthe ow nerof the pr operty, orthe per s on havi ng contr ol overthe pr operty. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 7- 15 ( R ev. 2004)
. M or eover , ourcas e l aw pr ovi des that“[ e] vi dence
o f th e p l a i n t i f

f’ s o wn n e g l i g e n c e m a y o p e r a t e t o r e d u c e th e p l a i n t i f f’ s d a ma g e s . I n d e e d , we have a num berof

cas es w her e w e have s ens i t i vel y as s es s ed a pl ai nt i f f’ s ow n neg l i gence
w hen he makes the cha r ge thatthe j ury’ s damage aw ar d i s gr os s l y i ns uf f i ci ent . ” Fli

ght L ine, I nc. v. T anksley , 608 So. 2d 1149, 1162 ( M i s s . 1992)
. H ow ever , w e have no c as e l aw that
su p p o rts In T o w n ’s a rg u m e n t t h a t th e v ictim s o f th is a rm e d ro b b e ry h a d a d u ty to m iti g a te thei rdama ges b y abi di ng by the r obber ’ s demands. T he ca s es f r om others t at es ci t ed by In T o w n in su p p o rt o f th e ir a rg u m e n t ar e c lea rly d istin g u ish a b le. T o p e n a lize a c rim e v ictim forhis fai l ure t o co op erat e w i th h i s ass ai l ant w ou l d co n st i tute a bi zarr e and perverse
m isa p p lica tio n o f th e d o c trin e o f c o m p a ra tiv e fa u lt. T h e trial c o u rt d id n o t ab u se its di s cr et i on i n denyi ng I nT ow n’ s r eques tf ora compar at i ve negl i gence i ns truct i on. V
. W h e th e r th e tria l co u rt fa iledto c o m p ly w ith th e sta tu to ry c a p o n n o n e c o n o m ic dam ages ; al t er nat i vel

y, w hetherthe tr i alcourt err ed i n denyi ng I

nTow n’s r eques tf

or r e m ittit u r . ¶3 5. I n i t s pos t - tr i a l “ M ot i on f orJ udgm entN ot w i t hs t andi ng t he V er di ct , ori n t he al t ernat i ve, M ot i on f

ora N ew T r i al , or , i n the al t ernat i ve, M ot i on f ora R emi t t i turand/ or

### 18

M ot i on t o A m end the V er di ct , ” I nT ow n a t t acke d the expe r tt es t i m ony us ed t o cal cul at e the p lai n ti ffs’ eco n o m ic da m ag es, alth o u g h ith ad n o t o bjec ted to that test im o n y at tri al. It f ur therar gued that“[ t ] he f actthatthes e tw o [ p] l ai nt i f f s w er e aw ar ded the exa cts ame am ount [o f d a m a g e s] a fte r p re se n tin g s u c h d iffe rin g te stim o n y a s to h o w th e y w e re a ffe c ted b y th is i nci dent , and thatthei ral l eged e conomi c l os s es w er e s i gni f i cant l y di f

f er ents houl d be
overw hel m i ng evi dence of bi as , pas s i on or prej udi ce. A s a r es ul t , the j udgm ents houl d be
re d u c e d .” In T o w n th e n a rg u e d th a t “P lain tiffs a re c a p p e d in th e ir re c o v e ry fo r n o n -e c o n o m ic d a m a g e s, th e ju d g m e n t is e x c e ss iv e in lig h t o f th e re lev a n t tes tim o n y a n d D e fe n d a n ts
re s p e c tf u lly m o v e [t h e tr ia l c o u rt ] fo r a re m ittit u r o r a n e w tr ia l o n th e is s u e o f d a m a g e s .” Fi nal l y, I nT ow n m oved the tr i al court“for a rem i t t i turor , i n the al t ernat i ve, t o amend t he j udgm entt o pr oper l y r ef l ecta n amount i n damages w hi ch i s s ubs t ant i at ed by the evi dence i n l aw , and t o am end the j udgm entt o com pl y w i th M i s s i s s i ppi st atut ory and cas e l aw . ” The tr i al courtdeni ed I nT ow n’ s pos t - tr i al m ot i on. ¶3 6. O n appea l , I nTow n a r gu e s tha t the tr i a l c ou r t s ho ul d ha ve gi ve n the j ury “ a ve r di ct fo rm th a t w o u ld re q u ire th e ju ry to s e g re g a te e c o n o m ic d a m a g e s fr o m n o n -e c o n o m ic damages [ , ] enabl i ng the tr i al j udge t o per f or m herst atut ory dut y t o appl y the $1, 000, 000 cap
on non- economi c damages
. ” I nT ow n al s o ar gues t hat“the f ai l ur e of t he t r i al j udge t o ei ther
s ubm i tt o the j ury a ver di ctf or m thatw oul d r equi r e the j ury t o s egr egat e ec onom i c damages fro m n o n -e c o n o m ic d a m a g e s, o r to in q u ire o f th e ju ry p o st-v e rd ict h o w it arr iv e d a t it s damage cal cul at i on r equi r es a new tr i al
. ” InTow n di d notobj ectt o the j ury i ns truct i on on t he f orm of the v e r di c t , a ndI nTown di d no tr e qu e s ta j ury i ns truc t i on tha tthe f orm of the
v e rd ic t s h o u ld s e g re g a te e c o n o m ic d a m a g e s fr o m n o n e c o n o m ic d a m a g e s .

### 19

¶37. Fi nal l y, on appea l , I nT ow n att acks the pl ai nt i f f s ’ expert s ’ t es t i m ony and ar gues t hat “[ g] i vi ng [ the pl ai nt i f

f s ] the bene f

i tof the f ul l $1, 000, 000 cap on noneconomi c damages , t he
m axi m um amount of

damages , bas ed on t he t r i al t es t i m ony, thatcoul d have be en aw ar ded t o H ow ar d i s $1, 692, 400, ” and the maxi m um amount of damages “t hatcoul d have be en a w a rd e d to P o o le is $ 1 ,8 5 3 ,8 0 0 .” In T o w n a rg u e s th a t th e trial c o u rt e rr e d in d e n y in g its
r emi t t i tur , and thatthi s Courts houl d “ or derthe tr i al c our t[ t o] r educe [ the pl ai nt i f f s ’ ] damage
aw ar d .
. . . ” A
. W h e th e r th e tria l co u rt fa iledto c o m p ly w ith th e sta tu to ry c a p o n n o n e c o n o m ic da m ag es. ¶ 3 8 . M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 1 1 -1 -6 0 p ro v id e s, in p e rtin e n t p a rt, th a t: (2) (b) In any ci vil act i on f i l ed on or aft er S eptem ber 1, 200 4, otherthan tho se act i ons des cr i bed i n par agr aph ( a) of thi s s ubs ect i on, i n t he even tthe tr i erof f actf i nds the def

endantl i abl e, they s hal l nota w ar d the pl ai nt i f f m or e than O ne M i l l i on D oll ars ($1, 00 0, 00 0. 00 ) f or non econ om i c dam ages. (c ) T h e tri er o f fact sh all n o t be a d v ised o f th e li m it ati o n s im p o sed b y th is s ubs ect i on ( 2) and t he j udge s hal l appr opr i at el y r educe any aw ar d of noneconomi c damages thatexce eds the appl i cabl e l i m i t at i on. M is s . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -1 -6 0 (2 )( b ), ( c ) ( S u p p . 2 0 1 0 ). ¶39. I nT ow n ar gues thatthe j ury r eturned a ve r di cti n w hi ch i ti s unabl e t o det erm i ne w hat
a m o u n t w a s a w a rd e d fo r e c o n o m ic d a m a g e s a n d w h a t am o u n t w a s a w a rd e d fo r n o n e c o n o m ic damages , and bec aus e the tw o types of da m ages w er e i ndi s t i ngui s habl e, the tr i al court“err ed by f ai l i ng t o t ake s uf

f i ci ents t eps t o enabl e hert o di s char ge hers t atut ory duty t o appl y t he cap on none conomi c damages and r educe t he j ury ver di cti n accor dance w i th M i s s . C ode § 11- 1- 60( 2) ( b)
. ” I nT ow n furtherar gues t hat“[ w ] hi l e i n s om e ca s es i tm ay be pos s i bl e f ort he appel l at e courtt o r evi ew the tr i al t es t i m ony and m ake a det erm i nat i on r egar di ng the amount

### 20

of economi c and non- economi c damages aw ar ded by the j ury, i n thi s cas e, t he j ury aw ar ded
eac h Pl ai nt i f

f exac t l y $2, 00 0, 000 i n damages bas ed on t es t i m ony thatpr ovi ded a r ange of pos s i bl e am ount s foreach el ementof da m ages cal cul at i on, as oppos ed t o exac tamount s f or e a c h e lem e n t o f th e d a m a g e c a lcu latio n .” In T o w n a lleg e s th a t “ it i s n o t p o ss ib le f o r th is C o u rtto d eterm ine w ith an y d eg ree o f ac cu rac y h o w m u ch the ju ry a w ard ed ea ch P lai n ti ff f oreconomi c damages and non- economi c damages thus enab l i ng thi s C our tt o appl y the sta tu to ry c a p o n n o n -e c o n o m ic d a m a g e s,” a n d a ss e rts th a t “ it sh o u ld n o t b e d e p riv e d o f its
r i ghtt o have the s t atut ory cap on non-e conomi c damages appl i ed t o Pl ai nt i f f[ s ] ’ damage
aw ar ds due t o t he err orof the tr i al j udge. ” ¶ 4 0 . Ju ry In stru c tio n N u m b e r 1 2 p ro v id e d th a t:

Y o u a re in s tru c ted th a t “d a m a g e s” is th e w o rd w h ich e x p re ss e s in dol l ar s and ce nt s the i nj ury s us t ai ned by M i chae l K ei th H ow ar d and Shannon Pool e, i f any, thatyou f

i nd by a pr eponder ance of the evi dence
. In o rde r t o rec o v er d am ag e s, they m u st be sh o w n w ith rea so n a b le p rob ab il ity b o th as to the irn ature an d as to their ca u se. H o w ev er, a p lai n ti ff d o e s n o t lo se h is/h e r rig h t to re c o v e r d a m a g e s b e c a u se h e /sh e is u n a b le to pr ove w i th abs ol ut e ce r t ai nty the mat hemat i cal val ue of hi s /heri nj ury. I f

the caus e o f t he i nj ury i s r eas onabl y pr obabl e, you m ay r eas onabl y es t i m at e the damages , and the as s es s m entther eof i s w i th[ i n] the s ol e di s cr et i on of the j ury. ¶ 4 1 . Ju ry In stru c tio n N u m b e r 1 3 p ro v id e d th a t:

T h e C o u rtinstructs the jury that if y o u r ve rdict be for the P lai n ti ffs M i chae l K ei th H ow ar d and Shannon Pool e of ( s i c) i n thi s caus e, i n arr i vi ng at the amountof

yourver di ct , you m ay t ake i nt o cons i der at i on any oral l of the f ol l ow i ng el ement s of

damages , i f

any, w hi ch you fi nd f

r om a pr eponder ance of the evi dence i n thi s cas e t o have r es ul t ed f r om the negl i gence , i f

any, of the D efendan t s. (a ) A ll p a st p re se n t an d fu tu re p a in , su ffe rin g a n d m e n tal a n g u ish , if any , sust ai ned by the P l ai nti ff s. ( b) A l l pas tand f

utur e l os tearni ngs , i f

any, pr oxi m at el y r es ul t i ng f r om P l ai nti ff S han no n P oo l e’s i njur i es. ( c) A ny pas tand f

utur e medi cal cos t s and s ur ger i es i f any.

### 21 In arriving a t th e am o u n t of y o u r v erd ict , y o u m ay a w ard the p lai n ti ffs M i chae l K ei th H ow ar d and Shannon Pool e s uch an a m ountof m oney w hi ch you f eel w i l l adequa t el y and r eas onabl y compensa t e the Pl ai nt i f f s f ora ny and a l l o f th e a b o v e l i s t e d e l e me n t s o f d a ma g e , i f

a n y , wh i c h y o u f

i n d f r o m a pr eponder ance of

the evi dence i n thi s cas e t o have r es ul t ed fr om the neg l i gen ce, i f any, of the D efendan t s. ¶ 4 2 . Ju ry In stru c tio n N u m b e r 1 4 p ro v id e d th a t: Y ou ar e i ns truct ed thati f you f i nd f orPl ai nt i f

f s , M i chae l H ow ar d and Shannon Pool e, i n thi s cas e, y ou are notauthor i zed t o f i nd f orany amountbeyond r eas onabl e compens at i on f orthe i nj ur i es s us t ai ned, i f any. Y ou ar e not authori zed t o aw ard any dam ages i n the nature of a penalty o r att orney’s f ees, norar e you bound by any e s t i m at es of dam ages m ade by the att orneys repr esent i ng the p art i es i n thi s sui t . If yo u fi nd forthe P l ai nti ff s, yo u m u st ther ef or e conf i ne yourver di ctt o a r eas onabl e compen sat i on f orthe i nj ur i es a ctua ll y su stai n ed , if

an y , b y the P lai n ti ffs as a re su lto f th e inc iden t i n q u e stio n . Y o u a re fu rth e r in stru c ted th a t th e se D e fe n d a n ts a re n o t re sp o n sib le fo r a n y p h y sic a l o r m e n tal p ro b lem s th a t th e P lain tiffs m ig h t h a v e h a d p rio r to the i nci denti n que s t i on, nora ny phys i cal orment al pr obl em t hati s notr el at ed to a n y in ju ry th e P lain tiffs m ig h t h a v e su ffe re d a s a re su lt o f th e in c id e n t in ques t i on. ¶ 4 3 . Ju ry In stru c tio n N u m b e r 1 8 p ro v id e d th a t:

T he C our ti ns truct s you thati f you f i nd fort he Pl ai nt i f

f s and agai ns tthe De f e n d a n t s y o u rv e r d i c ts h o u l d b e i n th e f o l l o wi n g f

o r m: “ W e th e j u r y , f

i n d f o rth e P l a i n t i f

f s a n d a g a i n s tDe f

e n d a n t s I n t o wn Le s s e e As s o c i a t e s , LLS ; I n t o wn Le s s e e Se r v i c e s , LLS; I T Te n a n tRBS, LLC and Ti m othy T uckercompensa t ory damages i n the amountof $

______ _ _____________ to M icha el K eith H o w ard an d co m p en sato ry damages i n t he amountof $ ____________________ t o Shannon Pool e. ” A n d y o u w il l w ri te yo u r ve rdict up o n a se p ara te piec e o f pa p er. I f you f i nd agai ns tthe Pl ai nt i f

f s a nd i n f avorof the D ef endant s , then the form of you r ver dictshal l be as fol l ow s: “W e the j ury f

i nd i n f avorof the D ef endant s . ” ¶4 4 . InT o w n d id no t o b ject to th ese j u ry instruc ti o n s. B ec au se itdid n o t o b ject t o the form
o f th e v e rd ict ju ry ins tru c tio n at trial, In T o w n is p ro c e d u ra lly b a rre d fro m d o in g so o n a p p e a l. See H yundai , 5 3 S o . 3 d a t 7 5 5 . A d d iti o n a lly , b e c a u se In T o w n d id n o t as k th e trial c o u rt to

### 22

gi ve a j ury i ns truct i on thats epar at ed ec onom i c and none conom i c dam ages , i tcannot
c o m p la in o n a p p e a l th a t s u c h a n in s tru c tio n w a s n o t g iv e n . See K in gv. S ta te , 857 So. 2d 702, 720 ( M i s s . 2003) ( D ef endanti s “pr ocedur al l y barr ed f r om as s ert i ng the abs ence of an i ndi vi dual i zed i ns truct i on, ” and “ a tr i al j udge w i l l notbe puti n err oron a mat t erw hi ch w as notpr es ent ed t o hi m f

orhi s deci s i on. ”). T hi s C our tdoes notengage i n s pecul at i on or conj ectur e, and i tw oul d be not hi ng m or e t han suppos i t i on forus t o t ry t o gues s w hatamount th e ju ry a w a rd e d in e c o n o m ic d a m a g e s a n d w h a t am o u n t ita w a rd e d in n o n e c o n o m ic d a m a g e s . B
. W hether the tr i al courterred i n d enying InT ow n’s r equ est

f or a rem i t t i t ur. ¶45 . A lt ern ati vely, I nT ow n argues that the t ri al courterred i n den ying it s m o ti o n for a re m itt itu r. In T o w n a rg u e s th a t H o w a rd ’s d a m a g e s s h o u ld b e re m itt e d fro m $ 2 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 to $1, 692, 400, and Pool e’ s dam ages shoul d be r emi t t ed f r om $2, 000, 000 t o $1, 853, 800. I nT ow n ar gues t hatH ow ar d’ s economi c damages r anged f r om $651, 800 t o $692, 400, w hi ch
w oul d m ake hi s damages , atm os t , $1, 692, 400, i ncl udi ng non econ om i c damages , and that Pool e’ s economi c damages r anged f r om $813, 400 t o $853, 800, w hi ch w oul d m ake he r damages , atm os t , $1, 853, 800. ¶46. “The st andar d of r evi ew f ortr i al courtdeci s i ons r egar di ng a r emi t t i turi s the abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d. ” U . S. Fid. an d G u ar. Co. of Miss. , 9 9 8 S o . 2 d a t 9 6 9 . “H o w e v e r, th is C our thas hel d thati t‘ has the r es pons i bi l i ty t o s ee thats uch j udi ci al di s cr et i on i s exer ci s ed
s oun dly a nd, i f

not , t o r ever s e. ” I

d. ( quot i ng Ho lm e s C o u n ty B a n k& T ru st Co . v. S ta

p le Cotton Coop. A s s oc. , 495 So. 2d 447, 451 ( M i s s . 1986) )
. T he s t andar d f orgr ant i ng an add i tur or r em i t t i tur i s w hetheror no t“the cou rtfi nd s that the jury w as i nfl uen ced b y b i as,

### 23

pr ej udi ce, orpas s i on o r . . . if the damages w er e contr ary t o the overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof
cr edi bl e evi dence
. ” R o d g e rs v. P a sc ag o u la P u b . S c h . D ist. , 61 1 S o. 2d 94 2, 94 4 (M i ss. 1 9 9 2 ). ¶47. I nT ow n do es no tcit e an y l aw sup po rt i ng it s con t enti on thati ti s ent i t l ed t o a
r e m it titu r. See B o w e n v. S ta te , 607 So. 2d 1159, 1161 ( M i s s . 1992) ( “A n ar gum ent
uns uppor t ed by compet entauthor i ty w i l l notbe cons i der ed on appe al ) ; M . R . A
. P. 28( a) ( 6) ( “The ar gum ents hal l cont ai n t he cont ent i ons of appel l antw i th r es pectt o the i ss ues pr es ent ed, and the r eas ons f orthos e cont ent i ons , w i th c i t at i ons t o the author i t i es , s t atut es , and p arts of the rec o rd re li ed o n . ”). M o reo v e r, i n li g h t of th e g en era l verd ictan d InT o w n ’s f ai l ur e t o r eques ta s peci al ve r di ctors peci al i nt err ogat or i es , w e cannotconcl ude thatthe tr i al ju d g e a b u s e d h e r d is c re tio n in d e n y in g th e re m ittit u r. ¶48. A ccor di ngl y, the j udgm entof the C i r cui tC our tof

the Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ctof H i nds C ounty i s af

f i r m ed. ¶ 4 9 . AF F I RM ED . CARL S ON AND DI CKI NS ON, P . J J . , RANDOL P H, LA M AR, CHANDL ER , P I E RC E AN D K I NG , J J . , CO NC UR . W AL L E R, C. J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .