I N T H E C O UR T O F APPEA LS O F TH E STAT E O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO . 2 0 1 3 - CA - 0 1 2 6 3 - CO A CH RI S TY A. HA RPER AP P EL LA NT
v. NORM AN E DW ARDS APP ELLEE
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 05/ 17/ 2013 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . JA M E S M C C L U R E III CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: P ANO LA COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L A N T : H A L S C O T S P R A G IN S J R . DAW N DAVI S CA RS ON RU S S E L L BA RT ON J OR DAN ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLEE: THO M AS A LAN W OM BLE NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY T RI AL CO UR T DI S P OS I T I ON: $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 J UR Y VE RD I CT I N F AVOR OF APPELLEE D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D : 11/ 18/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E G R I F F I S, P . J. , M A X W E L L A N D F A I R , JJ. FAI R, J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. N or m an Edw ar ds w as dri vi ng on a t w o- l ane county roa d w hen he r ounded a c ur ve and encount er ed C hr i s ty H arper ’ s vehi cl e parked on the w r ong s i de of the r oad atherm ai l box. E dw ar ds w as una bl e t o a voi d a c ol l i s i on be caus e, a tthatmom ent , a notherve hicl e w as appr oachi ng i n the corr ectl ane. H e br oughts ui tagai ns tH arpert o r ecove rf ori nj ur i es and pr operty damage s uf

f er ed i n the acc i dent
. T he j ury f ound thatEdw ar ds had s uf f er ed $25, 000 i n d a ma g e s , f

o rwh i c h Ha rp e rwa s n i n e ty - f i v e p e r c e n ta tf

a u l t . Ha rp e ra p p e a l s , a n d we a f f i r m.

### 2 DI S CU S S I ON 1. O peni ng P rayer ¶2. H arper ’ s f

i r s t i s s ue on appea l cent er s ar ound the pr ayer pr i or t o openi ng court f ort he d ay , o r, m o re p rec isel y , w h o g av e it
. A t 8 a.m
. the m o rnin g o f th e tri al, the c ir cu itclerk l earned thatthe mi ni s t erw ho had or i gi nal l y been s chedul ed t o l ead the pr ayerw oul d notbe
a b le t o att en d
. “O u t o f des p era ti o n , ” the clerk ask ed R u b ert M o rga n , a l o ca l m inis ter , to
su b sti tute. H e h ad give n th e o p en ing pray er i n th e p ast. Im m ed iat ely a ft er th e p ray er, E dw ar ds ’ s att orney i ntr oduced M or gan t o H arper ’ s at t orney and i nf or m ed herthatM or gan
w o rke d as an inv esti g ator for h is l aw firm . M o rga n w as in c o u rttha t day to as sistE d w ard s’s att orney w i th j ury s el ect i on. ¶3. D ur i ng voi rdi r e, one of the veni r emen r ecogni zed M or gan as a n e m pl oyee of a l aw firm th a t h a d re p re se n ted h e r m a n y y e a rs b e fo re . H a rp e r’s a tto rn e y , ap p a re n tly try in g to f i gur e outw hi ch f

i r m , t ol d the veni r eman – i n f r ontof the ent i r e pane l – thatM or gan w or ked f o ro p p o s i n g c o u n s e l ’ s l a w f i r m. ¶ 4
. A fte r fin ish in g h e r v o ir d ire , H a rp e r m o v e d fo r a m istria l. S h e d id n o t t a k e iss u e w ith th e c o n tent of th e p ray er or h o w i t w as d eli v ere d , bu t sh e arg u ed th at al low ing M o rg a n to l ead i tamount ed t o an endor s ementof E dw ar ds ’ s counse l
. T he t r i al courtr ef us ed t o gr ant
a m i s tr i al , buti torde r ed M or gan nott o ass i s tE dw ar ds ’ s couns el i ns i de the courtr oom . I tw as not ed on the r ecor d thatM or gan w as ne vers een by the veni r e s i t t i ng atthe couns el t abl e or otherw i s e conf

err i ng w i th E dw ar ds ’ s att orney. T he veni r eman w ho had bee n r epr es ent ed by M or gan’ s empl oyerw as s truck f orcaus e. O n a ppeal , H arperar gues thatthe f ai l ur e t o gr ant

### 3

a m istri al w as re v ersible e rror. ¶5 . A m istria l sh o u ld b e g ran ted w h en on e p arty su ffers “su b stan ti al a n d irre p a ra b le pr ej udi ce. ” U R C C C 3. 12. T he tr i al j udge, w ho h ad a fi rs t hand vi ew of the eve nt s as t hey unf ol ded, i s i n the bes tpos i t i on t o det erm i ne w hetherpr ej udi ce ha s occurr ed and t o w hat
e x te n t it c a n b e c u re d
. C oho R es our ces I nc. v. McC ar thy , 82 9 S o. 2d 1, 18 (¶50) ( M i ss. 2002)
. T hus w e r evi ew the gr antorde ni al of a mot i on f

ormi s tr i al f

oran abus e of

di s cr et i on. Es tat e of G i bs on v. M

agnol i a Heal thcar e I

nc. , 9 1 S o . 3 d 6 1 6 , 6 2 9 (¶3 7 ) (M iss. 2 0 1 2 ). ¶6
. T h e p ray er o cc u rred o ff the rec o rd an d b efo re this ca se w as ca ll ed
. F rom the re co rd
es t abl i s hed dur i ng H arper ’ s m ot i on f ora mi s tr i al , a l l w e know i s thatM or gan l ed the pr ayer and then s atdow n nextt o the ci r cui tcl erk. T hi s l i m i t ed r ecor d i l l ust rat es the nec es s i ty of entrus t i ng the gr ant i ng of a mi s tr i al t o the s ound di s cr et i on of the tr i al court . H avi ng obs erved the ent i r e s cene f i r s thand, the tr i al j udge det erm i ned t hatM or gan w oul d nothave had any si gni f

i cantpr ej udi ci al ef

f ecton the veni r e. Fr om w hati s bef or e thi s C our ton appea l , w e ca nnotr ef

ut e thatconcl us i on. ¶7 . M o re o v e r, sin c e th e p ra y e r o c c u rred be fore th e tr ial be g a n , H a rp e r h a d a m p le oppor tuni ty dur i ng voi rdi r e t o expl or e and m i t i gat e any r es ul t i ng pre j udi ce. B utw hi l e s he d id q u esti o n the v en ir em an w h o v o lun teered that sh e k n ew M o rga n , H arp er d id n o t vo ird ir e th e e n tire p a n e l a b o u t M o rg a n o r a b o u t th e p ra y e r. L ik e w ise , H a rp e r d id n o t sp e c ifica lly
r eques tt hatt he t r i al cour tadm oni s h t he veni r e orthe j ury r egar di ng the i s s ues of w hi ch s he
com plai ns. ¶ 8
. T h e re c o rd d o e s re fle c t th a t th e ju ro rs to o k th e o a th to b e fa ir a n d im p a rtial in th e ir

### 4

deli berat i on s and to decide the case o nly on the evidence p res ented. T he jury w as l i kew i se i ns truct ed bef

or e begi nni ng i t s del i ber at i ons. A s the M i s s i s s i ppi Supr eme C our thas hel d, the j ury i s pr es um ed t o have a dher ed t o i t s oath: T o the ext ent that any j uror, because o f hi s r el at i on shi p to one o f the p art i es, hi s occupa t i on, hi s pas texper i ence , orw hat ever , w oul d nor m al l y l ean i n f avor of one of the part i es , orbe bi as ed aga i ns tthe other, o rone’ s cl ai m orthe other ’ s def

ens e i n the l aw s ui t , t o thi s ext ent , of cour s e, hi s abi l i ty t o be f ai rand im p a rtial is im p a ire d . It sh o u ld a lso b e b o rn e in m in d th a t ju ro rs ta k e th e ir oaths and r es pons i bi l i t i es s er i ous l y, and w hen a pr os pect i ve j ur oras s ur es the c o u rt th a t, de sp ite th e c ir c u m sta n c e th a t ra ise s s o m e q u e stio n a s to h is q u a lifica tio n , this w ill n o t af fe c t h is v e rd ict, th is p ro m ise is e n tit led to cons i der abl e def

er ence . Sc o tt v. B a ll , 5 9 5 S o . 2 d 8 4 8 , 8 5 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ). ¶9. I tw oul d cer t ai nl y have been pr ef er abl e f ort he ci r cui tcl erk t o have s el ect ed s om eone e lse to lea d th e p ra y e r. B u t fro m th e re c o rd w e c a n n o t s a y H a rp e r su ffe re d irre p a ra b le pr ej udi ce, s o w e ca nnotconcl ude thatthe tr i al courtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n denyi ng her
m o tio n fo r a m istria l. 2. Judgm ent N ot w i t hst andi ng t he V erdi ct /P ropert y D am age ¶10. H arper ’ s s econd i s s ue i s pr es ent ed as w het her t he t ri al co ur terr ed i n denyi ng her
m ot i on f ora j udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng the ver di ct . B uts he m akes numer ous i ndepende nt
assert i on s und er this u m brel l a, incl ud i ng ch al l eng es t o several d i ff erentevident i ary ruli ng s, a n d n e a rly a ll o f th e se su b a rg u m e n ts a re p re se n ted in a c u rso ry fa sh io n . T h is is c o n tra ry to M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e o f

A pp e l l a t e Pr oc e du r e 28 ( a ) ( 3) , w hi c h r e qu i r e s that“[ e] ach i s s ue pr es ent ed fo r re v iew sh a ll b e se p a ra tely n u m b e re d ” in th e s tate m e n t o f iss u e s. “ N o iss u e n o t d istin c tly i dent i f i ed s hal l be ar gued by couns el [
. ] ” Id
. F ai l ure t o abi de by R ul e 28( a) ( 3) bar s our

### Edward s testified th at his v ehicle w as wo rth $ 2,0 00 befo re the accid ent b ut ju st 1 

### $3 00 (as scrap) afte rward s. 5 re v iew o f th e se as se rtio n s . R e e dv . S ta te , 987 So. 2d 1054, 1056- 57 ( ¶8) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2 0 0 8 ). ¶1 1. H arper ’ s mai n thrus tu nd e rthi s i s s ue i s h erchal l enge t o t he j ur y’ s f i ndi ng t hat E d w ard s h ad su ffered $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 in d am ag es. H er a rgu m en t, to the ex tent itis pro p erly b efo re thi s C our t , s eems t o be thats he i s ent i t l ed t o a JN O V beca us e of def ect s i n E dw ar ds ’ s pr oof of pr operty damage, the l os s of hi s vehi cl e, w hi ch he cont ended amount ed t o $1, 700. W e 1 not e, how ever, thatthe j ury r eturned a ge ner al ver di cton al l of E dw ar ds ’ s damages
. T he d a m a g e s in c lu d e d m e d ica l ex p e n se s a n d lin g e rin g p a in an d su ffe rin g , a n d sin c e , a s w e sh a ll expl ai n the nexti s s ue, thos e ar e s uf f i ci entt o s us t ai n the $25, 000 f i ndi ng of damages , t he cl ai m thatthe tr i al courts houl d have gr ant ed a JN O V bas ed on def ect s i n t he proof of p ro p e rt y d a m a g e is a n o n s ta rt e r. I l l
. Cent
. R. R. Co. v . B r ent , 1 33 S o. 3d 760, 770 ( ¶19) (M iss. 2 0 1 3 ). 3. R em i t t i t ur /N ew T ri al ¶ 1 2
. In th e fin a l i ss u e , H a rp e r co n ten d s tha t th e d a m a g e s aw a rd is ex c e ss iv e b e c a u se it i s appr oxi m at el y tw el ve t i m es the m edi cal bi l l s i ncurr ed. Fr om thi s , H arpercont ends thatthe
ver di ctw as the pr oductof pas s i on orpr ej udi ce. ¶13. T he ques t i on i s w hetherthe aw ar d i s “ s o e xces s i ve as t o s tr i ke manki nd, atf i r s t bl us h,
as bei ng beyond al l m eas ur e, unre as onabl e, and out r ageous , and .
. . m ani f es t l y s how [ s ] the j ury t o have be en ac tuat ed by pas s i on, part i al i ty, pr ej udi ce, orcorrupt i on. ” Ir b y v . T ra v is ,

### 6

935 So. 2d 8 84 , 9 40 (¶176) ( M i s s . 2006)
. W hetheran aw ar d i s exce s s i ve s houl d be d e te rm in e d o n a c a s e -b y -c a s e b a s is
. Miss. D ep’to f P ub
. Safet

y v. D urn , 861 So. 2d 990, 998 (¶ 2 7 ) (M iss . 2 0 0 3 ). T h e sta n d a rd o f r e v iew fr o m th e d e n ial o f a re m itt itu r o r a n e w trial is
a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . B ai l ey Lum ber& Suppl y C o. v. R obi ns on , 98 So
. 3d 986, 991 ( ¶11) ( M i s s . 2012)
. “I n r evi ew i ng a j ury ver di ct , the C our tw i l l res ol ve al l conf l i ct s of evi dence i n the appe l l ee’ s f

avorand det erm i nes al l r eas onabl e i nf er ence s f r om the tes t i m ony i n t he l i ghtm os tf

avor abl e t o t he appe l l ee’ s pos i t i on. ” I r by , 9 3 5 S o . 2 d at 94 0 (¶1 7 6 ). ¶ 1 4
. E d w a rd s’s m e d ica l b ill s to tale d a b o u t tw o th o u sa n d d o llars . H e tes tified th a t th e p a in b e g a n th e d a y a fte r th e a c c id e n t, a S a tu rd a y . H is b a c k , arm , n e c k , a n d h e a d h u rt. H e in iti a lly treat ed itw i th restand ov er- the-cou nterpain m edicat i on . B ut the p ai n co nti nu ed to getw orse unt i l he w entt o the emer gency r oom the f ol l ow i ng T ues day. T here, E dw ar ds w as gi ven pr es cr i pt i on pai n m edi cat i on and s t er oi ds
. H e w as then tr eat ed by a c hi r opr act orand
u n d e rw e n t p h y sic a l th e ra p y w ith L in d a T ro y , a n u rse p ra c tit io n e r. E d w a rd s te stifie d th a t h is tr eatm entha d gi ven hi m onl y part i al r el i ef and thathe had c ont i nui ng s or enes s and hea dache s thr ough the t i m e of

tr i al , aboutone and a hal f year s af t ert he acc i dent
. H e had t o s cal e bac k
a c tiv iti e s o u tsid e o f w o rk , su c h a s g ro w in g w a ter m e lo n s, th ro u g h w h ich h e h a d p re v io u sly
earned addi t i onal i ncome. ¶ 1 5 . Awa r d s o f th i r ty , f o r ty , f i f ty , o r e v e n o n e h u n d r e d t i me s th e a c tu a l d a ma g e s s h o wn h a v e b e e n a ffirm e d o n a p p e a l, “[d ]ue to th e u n c e rta in ty o f th e m o n e tar y v a lu e p lac e d o n p a in and s uf f er i ng and f

utur e damages
. ” See Ci r cus C i r cus Mis s . I nc. v. C us hi ng , 108 So. 3d 980, 990 ( ¶¶21- 22) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2012) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. C ases ci t ed by Edw ar ds w her e a

### 7

r emi t t i turw as gr ant ed w hen hundr eds of thous ands ormi l l i ons of dol l ar s w er e aw ar ded f or pai n and s uf

f e r i ng ar e i nappos i t e; cl ai m s of exce s s i venes s s houl d be r evi ew ed “by c om par i ng the aw ar ds ati s s ue w i th rul i ngs i n otherf actual l y s i m i l ar cases deci ded undercontr ol l i ng l aw . ” I d. at(¶ 20) ( ci t i ng C ade v. W alker , 77 1 S o . 2d 40 3 , 40 8 (¶1 2 ) (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 8 )). H a rp e r a lso p re se n ts s e v e ra l c a se s w h e re th e g ra n tin g o f a re m itt itu r w a s a ffirm e d o n a p p e a l, b u t th o s e a re lik e w is e d is tin g u is h a b le b e c a u s e o f t h e d e fe re n c e o w e d to tr ia l ju d g e s . See Str i ngerv. C r ow s on , 797 So. 2d 368, 370- 72 ( ¶¶5- 9) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2001) ( “W e ca nnots ay the tr i al j udge .
. . , havi ng had t he oppor tuni ty t o observe t he dem eanorof the w i tnes s es and appl y hi s l earned expe r i ence f r om the mostcentr al vant age poi ntof the ent i r e tr i al , exce eded
orabus ed hi s di s cr et i on, and ac cor di ngl y [ w e] af f i r m t he r emi t t i tur . ”)
. Si nce the tr i al j udge di d notgr anta r emi t t i turi n thi s cas e, w e mustdef er , as he di d, t o the j ury. ¶ 1 6
. G iv e n th e e v id e n c e o f E d w a rd s ’s in ju rie s a n d lin g e rin g p a in , w e c a n n o t sa y th a t a $25, 000 aw ar d “s hocks the cons ci ence ” orthatthe tr i al courtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n denyi ng H a rp e r’s m o tio n fo r a re m itt itu r o r a n e w trial. T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. ¶ 1 7 . T H E JU D G M E N T O F TH E C I R C U I T C O U R T O F PA N O L A C O U N T Y IS AF F I RMED . AL L CO S T S OF T HI S AP P E AL AR E AS S E S S ED TO T HE APP ELLANT. LE E, C . J. , I R V I N G A N D G R I FFIS, P. JJ. , B A R N ES, I SH EE , R O BE R TS, CAR LTON, M AXW ELL A N D J A M E S , J J ., C O N C U R .