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 4 - CA- 0 1 4 7 8 - S CT M ARI NER HEALT

H CARE, I

NC. ; GRANCARE, I N C .; E V ER GR EEN

H E A L T H C A R E, I N C .; NA T IONA L HER I T

AG E R EA L T Y, I

NC . ; GE OR GE D. M ORGAN; M

. S COTT ATHANS; J

. D. LEE ; C H A R L I E R . S I N C L A I R , J R . ; A N G EL A M. W H I TTI NG TON ; AN D JOH N H . M ERR ELL v. ES T AT E O F C HAR L ESE. ED W

AR DS , BY AN D THROUGH

NEVONNI

A TURNER, AD M I NI S T RA T RI X O F T HE ES T AT E O F CHA RL ESE. ED W

AR DS , FOR T HE US E A ND BENEFI T OF T

HE EST ATE OF CHARLESE. ED W A R D S , A N D F O R T

H E U S E A N D B EN E F IT OF THE W

RONGFUL DEATH BENEFICI ARI ES OF CHARLESE. EDW ARDS , DECEAS

ED D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 02/ 18/ 2004 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. RI CH AR D A . SM I TH COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: LE F LORE COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LANTS : W I LL I AM W . M c KI NLE Y, J R. L O R R A IN E B O Y K IN AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : D. BR YANT CH AF F I N SU SA N N I CH O LS EST ES KE NNE T H L . CO NNOR NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - W RO NG FUL D EATH D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 09/ 13/ 2007 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, PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT:

### 2

¶1 . T h e p re se n t c a se c o n ce rns a w ron g ful d ea th claim ag ains t a nu rsi n g h o m e a n d its par entcompani es . W e f i nd thatthe f

ai l ur e t o i nves t i gat e al l eged j ur orm i s conduct , the admi s s i on of

i m pr operevi dence , and t he f ai l ur e t o di s t i ngui s h among def endant s compel us t o reverse the judgm ent f or the P l ai nti ff

and rem and the case for f urther proceedings. FACTS ¶2. C har l es E dw ar ds w as admi t t ed t o the G r eenw ood H eal t h and R ehabi l i t at i on C ent er on D ece m ber27, 1994. H e w as f or ty year s ol d, and due t o chi l dhood br ai n damag e w as s ever el y m ent al l y r et ar ded and s uf f er ed f r om s ever e aut i s m , gr and mal s ei zur e di s or der , and a s w al l ow i ng di s or derthathad l ed t o chr oni c pneumoni a. H e had an es t i m at ed I . Q . of 13 and a m ent al a ge of

tw o ye ar s a nd thr ee m onths . H e coul d nots peak and had neveratt ended s chool . T hr oughoutm os tof hi s l i f e, he w as abl e t o fe ed hi m s el f , w al k and run, and use the to ilet w ith o u t as sis tan c e . H o w e v e r, p rio r to h is a d m itt a n c e to G re e n w o o d H e a lth , h is h e a lth h a d d e ter io ra ted , h e h a d d iffic u lty w a lk in g , a n d h e w a s in c re a sin g ly u n re sp o n siv e to fa m ily m e m b e rs . ¶3. I n O ct ober1996, G r eenw ood H eal th r ecomm ended thatE dw ar ds have a PE G f eedi ng tube i ns ert ed i nt o hi s st om ach, beca us e he w as r ef us i ng f ood or al l y and had l os ts i gni f i cant w ei ght . T hough E dw ar ds ’ s f ami l y i ni t i al l y r ef

us ed t o author i ze the i ns ert i on of the f eedi ng tube, by A pr i l 1997 they h ad acc ept ed the nec es s i ty of the pr ocedur e. I ni t i al l y, E dw ar ds r es ponded w el l t o PE G f eedi ng, butby O ct ober1998, hi s body had st opped pr oces s i ng the nutr i ent s del i ver ed thr ough the tube. B etw een A pr i l 1 99 9 and June 1999, E dw ar ds w as ho spi t al i zed forgast roi ntes t i nal bl eeding, and by A ug ust19 99 had l osttw enty- tw o p ou nd s. E dw ar ds ’ s condi t i on det er i or at ed s t eadi l y. Fr om M ay 2001 unt i l February 2002, E dw ar ds

### T h ou ghdistin ction s amon g th e ind ividual d efend ants w ill be imp ortant in th is 1 

### opini on, f or thesakeof conveni enc e, when r ef er ring to a llof the de fe ndant s, we wi llusethe term “Marin er.” 3 s pent188 days i n the G reenw ood- L ef l or e H os pi t al . I ntr avenous f eedi ng w as notor der ed unt i l E dw ar ds ’ s f

i nal hospi t al i zat i on on February 2, 2002. E dw ar ds di ed on February 16, 2 0 0 2 , f r o m c a r d i a c a rr e s tc a u s e d b y p n e u mo n i a , wh i c h wa s i n tu rn th e r e s u l to f v o l u me dep l et i on , a con dit i on caused by a l ack o f l i qu i d in the b od y’s cel l s. ¶4. O n D ece m ber7, 2001, E dw ar ds ’ s f ami l y br oughts ui tf

orcompensa t ory and puni t i ve damages agai ns tN at i onal H er i t age Real ty, the ow ner of G r eenw ood H eal th, i t s par ent com pan i es, G rancare, Inc. , E vergreen H eal thcare, and M ari ner H eal thcare, Inc. , and against f i ve i ndi vi dual s i n thei rcapa ci t i es as adm i ni s tr at or s orl i cens ees of G r eenw ood H eal th. T he 1 compl ai ntal l eged ne gl i gence , m edi cal m al pr act i ce, gr os s negl i gence , f r aud, and br eac h of fid u c iar y d u ty . A fte r E d w a rd s’s d e a th , the fa m ily a m e n d e d its c o m p lain t to in c lu d e a c laim f orw r ongf

ul death. T he tr i al began on D ece m ber8, 2003. T he j ury fou nd each of the def endant s l i abl e f

orE dw ar ds ’ s death, and aw arded $1. 5 m i l l i on i n compensa t i on. Subse quent l y, the tr i al j udge det erm i ned t hatt he j ury s houl d be al l ow ed t o cons i derpuni t i ve damages , and, af

t ercons i der i ng the evidence, the j ury aw ar ded $5 mi l l i on i n puni t i ve damages . M ar i nerr ai s es el even i s s ues on appea l , w hi ch w e have cons ol i dat ed i nt o s even. DI S CU S S I ON I . DE NI AL OF J UDGM EN T N OTW I THS TA NDI NG THE VE RDI CT ¶5 . G r eenw ood H eal th f i r s ta r gu e s tha tthe tr i a l c ou r te rr e d i n d e ny i ng i t s mot i on f or Ju d g m e n t N o tw ith sta n d in g th e V e rd ict (J N O V ). M a rin e r c o n te n d s th a t E d w a rd s’s e sta te

### 4

fa iled to p re se n t a p rim a fa c ie c a se fo r liab ili ty b e c a u s e th e E sta te’ s e x p e rt, D r. K e n n e th O l s on, di d notes t abl i s h thatthe negl i gence of the nur s i ng hom e w as t he pr oxi m at e caus e of E d w a rd s ’s d e a th . ¶6. T hi s C our tr evi ew s the gr antordeni al of a m ot i on fordi r ect ed ver di ctde novo, and w i l l cons i derthe evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e to t he appel l ee, gi vi ng thatparty the b e n e fi t o f a ll f

a v o ra b le in fe re n c e s th a t m a y re a s o n a b ly b e d ra w n fr o m th e e v id e n c e . W hitten v. Cox , 7 9 9 S o . 2 d 1 , 7 (M iss . 2 0 0 0 ). S o lo n g a s s u b sta n tial e v id e n c e su p p o rts th e v e rd ict, thatis , ev i dence of

s uch qual i ty and w ei ghtthatr eas onabl e and f ai r - m i nded j ur or s i n the e x e rc ise o f im p a rtial ju d g m e n t m ig h t h a v e re a c h e d d iffe re n t co n c lu sio n s, th e n th is C o u rt w ill a ff ir m . I d . ¶7 . In d e ter m in ing w h ethe r th e n eg li g en ce o f a p arty c au sed a p lai n ti ff’ s injurie s, th is C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t: T hatnegl i gence w hi ch mer el y f urni s hed the condi t i on orocca s i on upon w hi ch in ju rie s a re re c e iv e d , butdoes notputi n m ot i on the agenc y by orthr ough w hi ch the i nj ur i es ar e i nf l i ct ed , is n o t th e p rox im ate c au se th ere o f. H o w ev er, if a n a n tec e d e n t n e g lig e n t ac t p u ts in m o tio n a n a g e n c y w h ich c o n tin u e s in oper at i on unt i l an i nj ury o ccur s i tw oul d appea rt o be more l i ke a s econd p ro x im a te c a u s e th a n a re m o te a n d u n a c tio n a b le c a u s e . E ckm an v. Moo re , 8 7 6 S o . 2 d 9 7 5 , 9 8 1 -8 2 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ) (c itatio n s o m itte d ) ( e m p h a sis ad d ed ). ¶8 . In ca ses all eg ing that d ea th w as ca u sed b y the n eg li g en ce o f a h e a lth ca re p rov ider, p ro x im a te c a u s e m u s t b e e s ta b lis h e d b y a m e d ic a l d o c to r. R i char ds on v. Met hodis t Hos p. of H atties burg, I

nc. , 807 So. 2d 1244, 1248 ( M i s s . 2002) . T hi s C our tdoes notr equi r e that e x p e rt te s tim o n y c o n c lu s iv e ly e s ta b lis h th e c a u s e o f d e a th . B la k e v. Clein , 903 So. 2d 710,

### 5

7 3 1 -3 2 (M iss . 2 0 0 5 ); Str atton v. W ebb , 51 3 S o . 2d 5 8 7 , 5 9 0 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ). H o w ev er, ex p ert t es t i m ony must , a ta mi ni m um , s how thatde vi at i ons f r om the s t andar d of

nur s i ng car e ca us ed o r c o n tr ib u te d to th e d e c e d e n t’ s d e a th . R i char ds on , 8 0 7 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 4 8 . ¶ 9 . D r. K e n n e th O lso n tes tified th a t G re e n w o o d H e a lth b re a c h e d th e sta n d a rd o f c a re in fa ilin g to m o n ito r E d w a rd s’s n u triti o n a l n e e d s a n d b o w e l m o v e m e n ts, in fa ili n g to rec o m m en d intr av en o u s fee d ing , k n o w n as “ T P N feed ing , ” to th e ce n ter’s m ed ical directo r, a n d in n o t re c o m m e n d in g th a t E d w a rd s b e tra n sfe rre d to a m u ltip le- sp e c ialty fa c ili ty to a d d re ss h is w o rse n in g c o n d iti o n . H e fu rth e r o p in e d th a t th e fa ilu re o f th e n u rsin g h o m e to re c o m m e n d th e T P N tr e a tm e n t w a s a c o n tr ib u tin g c a u s e o f E d w a rd s ’s d e a th . ¶10. D r . O l s on’ s t es t i m ony di d notc oncl us i vel y e s t abl i s h the l i abi l i ty of the nur s i ng hom e. H e admi t t ed that , i n hi s de pos i t i on pr i ort o tr i al , he s t at ed thatthe nur s i ng h om e did not b re a c h th e sta n d a rd o f c a re in its fe e d in g p ro g ra m . H e a d m itt e d th a t fro m 1 9 9 9 u n til h is d ea th in 2 0 0 2 , E d w ard s w as sp en d ing incre asin g am o u n ts o f t im e in th e G ree n w o o d -L eflore H o sp ital, an d th a t h a lf o f a ll h o sp ital p a tien ts a re m a ln o u rish e d b e c a u se o f th e ir tre a tm e n t. Fi nal l y, he admi t t ed thatno doct ora tG r eenw ood- L ef l or e or der ed T PN tr eatm entunt i l 2002, d esp it e the fact that the h o sp it al st aff h ad am p le t im e to d eterm ine w h ethe r suc h a p roc ed u re w as nece s s ary. ¶ 1 1 . C o n sid e re d a s a w h o le, D r. O lso n ’s tes tim o n y w a s su ffic ien t to p re se n t a p rim a fa c ie cas e f orthe l i abi l i ty of

G r eenw ood H eal th. H e t es t i f i ed t o a caus al nexus betw een the ac t i ons of G reenw ood H eal th and Edw ar ds ’ s death. W hi l e he di d notrul e outthe pos s i bi l i ty that otherpart i es w er e l i abl e, hi s t es t i m ony thatthe negl i gence of G r eenw ood H eal th contr i but ed t o E dw ards’ s deat h is suff i ci ent t o est ab li sh p roxi m at e cause. V i ew ed in the li gh tm ost

### 6

f avo r a bl e t o Edw a r ds ’ s e s t a t e , the tr i a l c ou r td i d no ta bu s e i t s d i s c r e t i on i n de nyi ng t he m o ti o n for a j u d g m en t n o tw ith stan d ing th e v erd ict . T h is assig n m en t o f error i s th e re fo re w ith o u t m e rit. I I . DENI AL O F M OTI ON TO CO NTACT J URO RS REGARD I NG ALLEGED J UROR M I S CONDUCT ¶12. O n D ece m ber27, 2002, af t erthe j ury r ender ed a ve r di ctf orE dw ar ds ’ s es t at e, M ar i ner w as cont act ed by one of the j ur or s , J ur or“B , ” w ho al l eged thatanotherj ur or , J ur or“W , ” had m ade pr ej udi ci al s t at ement s dur i ng the tr i al and i n j ury de l i ber at i ons . J ur orB al l eged i n an af f i davi tthatJ ur orW , on the f i r s tday of

tr i al , s ai d that“s he had made up herm i nd i n f avor of the pl ai nt i f

f ; thats he coul d notw ai tt o gi ve money t o the pl ai nti f f ; and thatther e w as nothi ng anyone c oul d s ay thatcoul d change herm i nd. ” The af f i davi tal l eged s ever al other s t at ement s , i ncl udi ng: ( 1) thatJ ur orW knew a resi den tatG r eenw ood H eal th, w ho t o the a ffia n t’s b e st re c o llec tio n w a s J u ro r W ’s r e lativ e ; (2 ) th a t sh e h a d p e rso n a lly w itn e ss e d th is r es i dentl yi ng i n herow n w as t e and r ece i vi ng poorcar e, and thatbeca us e thatr es i denthad r ece i ved poorc ar e, Edw ar ds musta l s o ha ve r ece i ved poorc ar e; a nd ( 3) thatJ uror W s aw otherr es i dent s unknow n t o herr ece i ve poorcar e w hen s he vi s i t ed the nur s i ng hom e. F u rth e rm o re , the a ffia n t re fe rre d to g e n e ra l c o m m e n ts b y ju ry m e m b e rs th a t “w h ite p e o p le h av e b ee n tak ing b lack p eo p le’s m o n ey a n d b lack p eo p le h av e fi g u red o u t th at law su it s are the w ay t o gett he m oney back, ” and that“j ur or s neede d t o s t i ck t ogethert o getthe money back t o bl ack pe opl e and thatm oney s houl d be gi ven i n thi s cas e bec aus e the pl ai nt i f f w asT he af f i davi tdi d nots peci f

y w hethert hes e ot hers t at ement s w er e made dur i ng the 2 tr i al ori n j ury del i ber at i ons 

### . 7 bl ack. ” T he af

f i davi tdi d notpr eci s el y cl ar i f y w hi ch j ur or s m ade thes e s t at ement s . Such 2
rem arks ar e at tri bu t ed to “j uror com m ents ” and w ere apparentl y m ade b y m ult i ple j urors . T he aff i dav i ti m pli ctl y incl ud ed Juror W am on g those w ho m ade suc h st at em ents . N ev erthe less, ev en if J u ro r W n ev er m ad e the se c o m m en ts, the o ther statem en ts th at w ere d ir e c tly a ttr ib u te d to J u ro r W a re m a te ri a l to th e is s u e a t h a n d . ¶13. R el yi ng on thi s af f i davi t , M ar i ner m oved t o cont act addi t i onal j ur or s and t o s t ay the ju d g m e n t u n til a n in q u iry h a d b e e n c o n d u c ted . T h e trial c o u rt ru led th a t th e ju ro r’s a ffid a v it w as notcompet entevi dence becaus e i tfa i l ed t o al l ege i m perm i s s i bl e ext ernal i nf l uence s and that , even i f

the s t at ement s ha d i n f

actbe en made, they r epr es ent ed the j ur or ’ s know l edge of t he w i tnes s es and the ca s e and, as s uch, di d notcons t i tut e the s or tof out s i de i nf

l uence cont empl at ed by M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E vi dence 606( b) . T he t ri al courtther ef or e deni ed M ar i ner ’ s m ot i ons and ent er ed i t s f i nal j udgm ent . O n appea l , M ar i nercont ends thatthe tr i al c o u rt e rr e d in d e n y in g its m o tio n to c o n ta c t a d d itio n a l ju ro rs . ¶ 1 4 . R u le 6 0 6 (b ) o f th e M iss iss ip p i R u les o f E v id e n c e p ro h ib its ju ro rs f ro m tes tify in g to s t at ement s m ade dur i ng j ury del i ber at i ons , s ubj ectt o an exc ept i on f orextr aneous pr ej udi ci al info rm ati o n , n o t bro u g h t ou t at tr ial , tha t w as im p rop erly p u t befo re the jury . M . R . E . 6 0 6 (b). Th i s p r o h i b i t i o n o n t h e i mp e a c h me n to f j u r i e s i s c ru c i a l t o t h e v i a b i l i ty o f o u rl e g a l s y s t e m, sin c e itp ro tec ts th e jur y ’s a b ili ty to c a n d id ly d isc u ss iss u e s fr e e fro m th e fe a r th a t th e y w ill b e c a lle d to ju s tif

y th e ird e c is io n . Sal

te rv. W at kins , 513 So. 2d 569, 571 ( M i s s . 1987) . T he rul e i s de s i gned both t o pr eventthe har as s m entof j ur or s a nd t o pr eventa j uror f r om

### 8

re m a in in g s ile n t d u ri n g d e lib e ra tio n s a n d la te r a s s e rt in g im p ro p e r i n fl u e n c e . Id . C on seque nt l y, w hi l e a j ur orm ay t es t i f y w hetherout s i de i nf

l uence ori nf

or m at i on w as i m pr oper l y pr es ent ed bef or e the j ury, R ul e 606( b) cat egor i cal l y p rohi bit s t est i m ony r egar di ng s peci f i c s t at ement s m ade dur i ng j ury del i ber at i ons or any i nf l uence s uch i nf

or m at i on had on h is o r h e r m e n ta l p ro c e s s e s . Id . ¶1 5 . A trial co u rt is o b li g ated to inv esti g ate an all eg ati o n o f m isco n d u ct w h en the p a rty al l e gi ng mi s c on du c tmak e s a s ho w i ng o f e xtr i ns i c e vi de nc e s uf f i c i e ntt o ov e r c ome t he p re s u m p tio n o f ju ry im p a rt ia lity . U n ited S tates v. Infelise , 8 1 3 F . S u p p . 5 9 9 , 6 0 5 (N .D . Ill . 1993) . W her e a pa r ty fa i l s t o m ake thi s thr es hol d s how i ng, no i nqui ry i nt o the j ury’ s ver di ct is re q u ir e d . T

an n erv. U

nited States , 483 U . S. 107, 117- 27, 107 S. C t . 2739, 2745- 51; 97 L . E d. 2d 90, 103-11 ( 1987) . A new tr i al i s appr opr i at e onl y w hen the j ury r ece i ved f act s that conce rn a mat er i al i s s ue i n di s put e and they are q ual i t at i vel y di f f er entf r om the evi dence a d m itte d a t tr ia l. G ladney v. Clarks dale B eve r age Co. , 6 2 5 S o . 2 d 4 0 7 , 4 1 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 3 ). In d eterm ining w h ethe r ou tsi d e info rm ati o n is p rejud ici al, rev ersa l i s w arran ted w h ere there i s overw hel m i ng evi dence thata j ur orw i thhel d i nf or m at i on f

orw hi ch he ors he w oul d have been c hal l enged by one of the part i es and s ubs equent l y r el ayed thatexac tdi s qual i f yi ng in fo rm a tio n to th e ju ry d u ri n g d e lib e ra tio n s . T . K . Stanley, I

nc. v. Cas on , 614 So. 2d 942, 9 5 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ). ¶16. I n the pr es entc as e, the tr i al c our tf ound thatthe j ur or ’ s a f

f i davi tw as notcompet ent beca us e i tconce rned the ment al i m pr es s i ons of a j ur ordur i ng del i ber at i ons . I n the al t ernat i ve, the tr i al courthel d thata new t r i al w as notw arr ant ed bec aus e i nf or m at i on about the a ll eg ed m istrea tm en t of o ther res iden ts of the n u rsi n g h o m e w as n o t qu ali tativ e ly

### 9

d iffe re n t fro m th e e v id e n c e p u t o n b y E d w a rd s’s e sta te . W h ile th e a ffid a v it d id c o n tain i nf or m at i on r egar di ng the ment al i m pr es s i ons of both the s peake rand the a l l egedl y of f endi ng j ur or , i ta l s o s pe c i f

i c a l l y a l l e ge d tha tthe j ur orf a i l e d t o truthf

ul l y a ns w e rqu e s t i on s du r i ng v o ird ir e . ¶ 1 7 . T h e sta n d a rd fo r th e re v iew fo r ju ro r m isc o n d u c t a risin g fro m a fa ilu re to re sp o n d to q u e stio n s d u rin g v o ir d ire is a s fo llo w s: W her e a pr os pect i ve j ur ori n a cr i m i nal cas e f ai l s t o re s pond t o a ques t i on by def ens e couns el on voi rdi r e, the C our ts houl d det erm i ne w hetherthe ques t i on w as ( 1) r el evan tt o the vo i r di re exam i nati on , (2) w hetheri tw as unam biguou s, and ( 3) w hetherthe j ur orha d s ubs t ant i al know l edge of the i nf or m at i on s ought t o be el i ci t ed. I f

al l ans w er s t o the above ques t i ons ar e af f i r m at i ve, then the courtdet erm i nes i f

pr ej udi ce t o the def

endanti n s el ect i ng the j ury coul d be in fe rr e d fr o m ju ro r's f

a ilu re to re s p o n d . B a rk e r v . S ta te , 463 So. 2d 1080, 1083 (M i s s . 1985) ( ci t i ng O do m v. S ta te , 355 So. 2d 1381 (M iss . 1 9 7 8 )). T h o u g h this tes t ha s b e e n ap p lied alm o st e x c lu siv e ly in c rim in a l tria ls, it i s e q u a lly a p p lic a b le to a lle g a tio n s o f ju ro r m is c o n d u c t i n c iv il s u its . See Stanley , 614 So. 2d a t948; Salte rv. W

at kins , 513 So. 2d 569, 573 ( M i s s . 1987) . I n Stanley , the def endant co rpo rati o n m o v ed for a n ew tri al a ft er s u b m itti n g a n a ffi d av ittha t all eg ed o n e o f th e juro rs had s ai d dur i ng r ece s s es thats he knew the pl ai nt i f f , thatthe pl ai nt i f

f s houl d getthe money, a n d th a t th e v ic e p re s id e n t o f t h e d e fe n d a n t c o m p a n y c o u ld n o t b e t ru s te d . Id . T he def endant ’ s m ot i on al s o al l eged thatt he j ur orhad f ai l ed t o di s cl os e thatherbr otherhad bee n k ill e d w h ile w o rk in g fo r th e d e fe n d a n t. Id . T he tr i al courtal l ow ed the part i es t o ques t i on the j ur or . T he j ur oradmi t t ed thats he knew the pl ai nt i ff , b ut denied spe aki ng aboutthe p a rt ie s to a n y o th e r j u ro rs b e fo re d e lib e ra tio n . Id . T h e tri al co u rtruled that the d efe n d an t’ s voi rdi r e ques t i ons w er e nots peci f i c enough t o m ake the j uror’ s fai l ur e t o di s cl os e her

### 10

k n o w ledg e re v ersible e rror, a n d d ec li n ed to a d d ress all eg ati o n s o f m isco n d u ct du ri n g jury d e lib e ra tio n s . Id . at949. W e r ever s ed, f i ndi ng that“[ t ] he evi dence i s overw hel m i ng that [ the j ur or ] w i thhel d m at er i al i nf or m at i on duri ng voi rdi r e w hi ch w oul d have r es ul t ed i n her bei ng chal l enged by [ the def endant ] , then r el ayed thatexac tdi s qual i f yi ng i nf or m at i on t o the othermem ber s of

the j ury dur i ng del i ber at i ons . ” Id . at950. I n doi ng s o, w e emphas i zed that “w her e, as a mat t erof

com m on exper i ence , a ful l and cor r ectr es pons e w oul d have pr ovi ded the bas i s f

ora per empt ory chal l enge, notri si ng to t he di gni ty of a cha l l enge f

orcaus e, our cou rt s have g reat er di scr et i on , al tho ug h a di scr et i on that shou l d al w ays be ex erci sed aga i nst the bac kdr op of

ourduty t o s ecur e t o eac h party tr i al b efor e a f ai rand i m part i al j ury. ” I d. at949 ( ci t i ng M

y e rs v. S ta te , 5 6 5 S o . 2 d 5 5 4 , 5 5 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 )). ¶1 8 . T h e all eg ed m isco n d u ct in the p rese n t ca se is sim il ar to that fou n d to b e re v ers ib le err ori n Stanley . D ur i ng voi rdi r e ther e w er e at lea s ttw o i ns t ance s i n w hi ch the j ur or w ith h eld m aterial d isqu ali fyin g info rm ati o n . F ir st, in the co n text o f assu ri n g that v en ir e m e m b e rs c o u ld re a c h a v e rd ict b a s e d s o le ly o n th e law a n d e v id e n c e p re se n ted a t trial, pl ai nti f f’ s couns el as ked, “[ I ] s ther e anybody w ho has any r eas on t o f eel thatther e i s any re a so n th a t w e h a v e n ’t to u c h e d o n , th a t y o u fe e l th a t w e o u g h t to k n o w th a t w o u ld a d v e rse ly i m pactyourabi l i ty t o s erve as a j uror i n t his cas e, thatw e have n’ tdi s cus s ed thus f ar ?” S ec o n d , p lai n ti ff’ s co u n sel l ater ask ed , “Is the re a n y o n e h ere w h o jus t th e m en ti o n o f a nur s i ng hom e i nvoke [ s i c] negat i ve f eel i ngs , negat i ve exper i ence s ?” The j ur ori n ques t i on did not r ai se her hand or otherw i se i nd i cat e thatshe had any exp eri ence w i th n ursi ng ho m es. T he ques t i on by def

ens e couns el w as r el evant , unambi guous , and the j ur orhad s ub s t ant i al

### 11

know l edge of

the i nf or m at i on r eques t ed. I f

a ccur at e, hers t at ementon the f i r s tday of

tr i al th a t s h e h a d a lr e a d y d e c id e d fo r E d w a rd s ’s e s ta te c le a rl y b e lie d h e r i m p lie d im p a rt ia lity . ¶1 9. T her e i s no unbendi ng rul e f or e ve ry s i tut a t i on tha t mi gh t a r i s e on the vo i r di r e of p ro s p e c tiv e ju ro rs . O dom , 355 So. 2d a t1383. R ather , eac h cas e mustbe dec i ded bas ed on th e fa c ts p re s e n te d . Id . A ddi t i onal l y, w e m us tconsi dert he r el at i ons hi p betw een the ques t i on p o s e d a n d th e ju ro r’ s k n o w le d g e . See B u c k ley v. S ta te , 772 So. 2d 1059, 1064 ( M i s s . 2000) (q u e stio n d u rin g v o ir d ire w a s a m b ig u o u s “ a s it re late d ” to a p a rticu lar ju ro r); T . K . Stanley, I nc. v. Cas on , 614 So. 2d 942, 949 ( M i s s . 1992) ( ques t i on on voi rdi r e s houl d have e l i ci t ed a re s p o n s e in lig h t o f j u ro r’ s k n o w le d g e ). ¶20. T he al l egat i ons l i s t ed i n the af f i davi tther ef

or e metthe thr es hol d f

ora j udi ci al i nqui ry, a n d th e trial c o u rt e rre d in re fu sin g to c o n d u c t o n e . W e fin d th a t, i n th is c a se , the fa ilu re to i nves t i gat e j ur orm i s conductj eopar di zed the part i es ’ r i ghtt o a f ai rand i m part i al tr i al , and thatcons equent l y the j udgm entm us tbe r ever s ed. I I I . F AI LU RE TO COND UCT A S EP ARAT E E VI DE NTI ARY HEARI NG AND F AI L UR E T O E XC L UD E P RE J UD I CI AL E VI DE NC E F RO M T HE COM P EN S AT ORY P HAS E OF THE TR I AL ¶21. I n pr etr i al m ot i ons , M ar i nerm oved t o excl ude var i ous “types ” of evi dence , i ncl udi ng evidence o f M ari ner’ s corporat e pract i ces, evidence o f pat t erns of care unrel at ed to E dw ards, an d erro rs i n the n u rsi n g ho m e’s d o cu m en tat ion th at did n o t affec t E d w ard s. T h e tri al co u rt f ound thes e mot i ons va gue and r es erved j udgm enton the admi s s i bi l i ty of s peci f i c evi dence unt i l tr i al . A f

t erthe j ury f

ound i n f avorof E dw ar ds ’ s es t at e, the tr i al courtcons i der ed the i nf or m at i on thathad bee n pr es ent ed, and rul ed thatthe i s s ue of puni t i ve damages s houl d be pr es ent ed t o the j ury. O n appea l , M ar i nerar gues thatthe tr i al courterr ed i n notexcl udi ng

### 12

pr ej udi ci al i nf

or m at i on dur i ng the compensa t ory pha s e of the tr i al a nd i n r el yi ng on evi dence i ntr oduced dur i ng the compens at ory phas e t o det erm i ne w hether con si der at i on of puni t i ve d a m a g e s w a s w a rr a n te d . ¶22. W hen deci di ng w hether t o s ubm i t the i s s ue of puni t i ve damages t o a tr i er of f act , the tr i al courtl ooks atthe t ot al i ty of the ci r cumst ance s , as r evea l ed i n the r ecor d, t o det erm i ne i f a r eas onabl e, hypothet i cal tr i erof factcoul d f

i nd ei therm al i ce orgr os s negl ectand re c k le s s d is re g a rd . B ra d fie ld v. S c h w a rtz , 936 So. 2d 931, 936 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng R ossK ing- W al ker , I nc. v. Hens on , 67 2 S o . 2d 11 8 8 , 11 9 1 (M iss. 19 9 6 )). T h e tr ial c o u rt ’s det erm i nat i on w hethe ra ca s e w arr ant s the cons i der at i on of puni t i ve damages w i l l notbe o v e rt u rn e d a b s e n t a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . Id . ( ci t i ng Do e e x r e l . Do e v. S a lv a ti o n A r my , 835 S o . 2 d 76 , 81 (M iss. 20 0 3 ). E v iden ce w h ich d o es n o t p ertain t o co m p en sa tin g th e p lai n ti ff b u t i n stead see k s to sh o w the m ali ciou s o r g ro ssly n eg li g en t cha rac ter of the d efe n d an t’ s a c tio n s s h o u ld n o t b e h e a rd b y th e ju ry u n til li a b ility h a s b e e n d e te rm in e d . B ra d fie ld , 936 So. 2d at938. E vi dence m ay, of cour s e, be proba t i ve of bot h l i abi l i ty and t he as s es s m entof puni t i ve d a mage s . Si mi l a r l y, e vi de nc e may b e d e e med i na dmi s s i bl e d ur i ng t he com pen sat ory ph ase of tri al bu trel evan tdu ri ng the ev i den t i ary heari ng on p un i t i ve d am ages. I n ma k i n g d e t e r mi n a t i o n s a b o u tth e r e l e v a n c e o f e v i d e n c e t o th e l i a b i l i ty o f th e p a r t i e s , we a re g u id e d b y th e u n d e rly in g p u rp o se o f b ifu rc a tio n to “p re v e n t i ss u e co n fu sio n an d to c re a te a b arrier be tw ee n test im o n y regardi ng the fund am ental i ssue of li ab il ity an d the in fl am m atory i s s ue of egr egi ous conduct . ” Ha r t f o r d Un de r w r ite rs I

n s . Co . v. Wil

lia ms , 936 So. 2d 888, 8 9 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ).

### 13

¶2 3 . T h e fa il u re to co n d u ct a n e v iden ti ary h ea ri n g o n p u n it ive d am ag es, w h ere the p lai n ti ff has s oughts uch damages a nd the j ury ha s a w ar ded compensa t ory da m ages , con st i tut es re v e rs ib le e rr o r. See B ra d fie ld , 93 6 S o. 2d at93 8. S i m i l arl y, the fai l ure t o b i fur cat e a case in v o lv in g c la im s fo r p u n itiv e d a m a g e s m a y c o n s titu te re v e rs ib le e rr o r. H art ford , 936 So. 2d at897. H ow ever , t he t r i al cour ti n t hi s cas e pr oper l y conduct ed an evi dent i ary hear i ng af t er the j ury r eturned a ve r di ctf orc om pens at ory da m ages i n f avorof E dw ar ds ’ s es t at e. T he tr i al j udge hea r d the evi dence pr es ent ed dur i ng the compensa t ory da m ages pha s e of the tr i al and det erm i ned thatcons i der at i on of puni t i ve damages w as appr opr i at e. M ar i ner ’ s cl ai m thatthe tr i al courtf

ai l ed t o c onducta he ar i ng i s nots uppor t ed by the r ecor d, a nd the as s i gnm entof e rro r is w ith o u t m e rit. ¶ 2 4 . M a rin e r a lso a rg u e s th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d in a d m itt in g e v id e n c e re le v a n t o n ly to p u n it ive d am ag es d u ri n g the c o m p en sato ry p h ase o f th e tri al. A s n o ted a b o v e, th e tri al co u rt di d notdeny M ar i ner ’ s m ot i ons i n l i m i ne, butdi r ect ed couns el t o r ai s e obj ect i ons w hen the sp e c if ic e v id e n c e w a s p re se n ted . D u rin g E d w a rd s’s c a se -in -c h ief , M a rin e r d id o b

jec t to pl ai nt i f f’ s couns el r eadi ng i nt o the r ecor d the depos i t i on of R oy D um as , a r egi onal vi cepr es i dentof

the comp any . M ar i nerar gued thatthe i ntr oduct i on of the evi dence i nvol ved

“ tw o o th e r c a se s in v o lv in g o th e r fa c ili ties , an d [p lain tiff’s c o u n se l] is s e e k in g p a rts o f th is d e p o s itio n fo r s o m e g e n e ra liz e d te s tim o n y , [a n d ] it’ s n o t n e c e s s a ri ly a p p lic a b le to th is c a s e .” D um as t est i f

i ed aboutvar i ous as pect s of the M ar i nercorpor at e s tructur e, i ncl udi ng a compensa t i on s ys t em t hatw as t i ed t o economi c ef f i ci ency, hi s ow n dut i es , hi s f ocus on the fi n an cial co n d it ion o f th e n u rsi n g h o m es ra ther than the instan ce s o f w eigh t l o ss an d p ressu re so re s, a n d th e c o m p a n y ’s “ fo u r C ’s” : ca re , co st, c e n su s, a n d c a sh , w h ich w e re su p p o se d to

### 14

gu i de thei r busi ness decis i on s. A s a theo ry of the irc ase thro ug ho ut tri al proceed i ng s, pl ai nt i f f’ s couns el r el i ed on thi s t es t i m ony and the t es t i m on y of M ar i ner ’ s s eni orvi ce pr es i dentand tr eas ur er , B oyd G entry, t o portr ay M ar i nera s a c om pany f ocus ed on f

i nanci al s u c c e s s ra th e r t h a n c o m p e te n t c a re . ¶25. T he s t andar d of r evi ew r egar di ng the admi s s i on or excl us i on of evi dence i s abus e of dis cret i o n , a n d err or w i l l no tbe d eem ed reversi ble unl ess the err or adve rs el y aff ect s a s u b s ta n tia l r ig h t o f a p a rt y . W hitten , 799 So. 2d at13. E dw ar ds ’ s es t at e ar gues thatevi dence of gener al corpor at e pr act i ces w as nece s s ary t o demonst rat e t hat M ari ner’ s budget i ng pol i ci es caus ed Edw ar ds ’ s i nj ur i es and dea th. H ow ever , E dw ar ds ’ s es t at e submi t t ed no evi dence that w oul d es t abl i s h a ca us al connec t i on betw een the budget i ng pol i ci es of M ar i nerand the i nj ur i es and dea th s uf

f er ed by E dw ar ds . T he es t at e di d nots how thatG r eenw ood H eal th w as under s t af

f ed bec aus e of

the budget i ng pol i ci es , northatG r eenw ood H eal th ha d been de ni ed fu n d in g b y M a ri n e r. ¶26. T he i nf

or m at i on i n the depos i t i ons of G entry and D um as w oul d cert ai nl y have be en r el evantatthe puni t i ve phas e t o es t abl i s h w hetherE dw ar ds ’ s tr eatm entw as an abe rr at i on or cons i s t entw i th company pr act i ce. H ow ever , the t es t i m ony w as notpr obat i ve t o the i s s ues of duty, br eac h, caus at i on, ori nj ury. G i ven the us e of the t es t i m ony attr i al t o emphasi ze the

“ b a d c o rp o ra te c h a ra c ter ” o f M a rin e r, w e fin d th a t ad m iss io n o f th e tes tim o n y m a ter ially pr ej udi ced the def

endant s . I n l i ghtof

thi s pr ej udice, the j ury’ s ver di ctm us tbe r ever s ed. I V . EV I D EN TIAR Y R U LING S ¶27. M ar i nera r gues thatthe t ri al cou rterr ed in adm i t t i ng evidence of s hor t - s t af f i ng, w age r at es , and al cohol cons um pt i on. T hey cont end t hatE dw ar ds ’ s es t at e pr ovi ded no

### 15

t es t i m ony thatconnec t ed s uch evi dence and E dw ards’ s i nj ur i es and dea th. I n the al t ernat i ve, they ar gue thats uch i nf or m at i on w as r el evanton l y atthe puni t i ve damages phas e of the tr i al . A s not ed above , the admi s s i on orexcl usi on o f evi dence i s r evi ew ed f or a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . W hitten , 799 So. 2d at13. A . G e ne r al i z e d Evi de nc e of Shor t - St af

f i ng ¶2 8. M a r i ne rf

i r s tc l a i ms tha tthe tr i a l c ou r te rr e d i n a dmi t t i ng t es t i m ony f r om nur s i ng as s i s t a nt s tha tthe y f

e l to ve rw he l med a nd h a d tr ou bl e p r ov i di ng c ompe t e ntc a r e . M ar i ner ar gues thats uch t es t i m ony i s i nadm i ssi ble unl es s the al l eged s hor t - s t af f i ng caus ed the as s i s t ant s t o give i nadequa t e ca r e s peci f i cal l y t o E dw ar ds . T he ar gum enti s m i s pl ace d. E ach of the nur s i ng as s i s t ant s w ho t es t i f i ed f orE dw ar ds ’ s es t at e had be en r es pons i bl e f or E dw ar ds’s car e ats om e poi ntdur i ng hi s t i m e atG r eenw ood H eal th. Sever al of them t es t i f i ed thatunder s t af

f i ng pr event ed them fr om turni ng E dw ar ds as of t en as w as n e c e ss a ry to p re v e n t b e d so re s. O n e n u rsin g a ss ista n t tes tified th a t sh e w a s n o t ab le to change E dw ar ds as of

t en as s he s houl d have be caus e of s hor t - s t af

f i ng. A notheral l eged thatthe assi st antw hos e s hi f tcame bef

or e her s gave Edw ar ds s ubs t andar d car e. A l l of the a s s is ta n ts te s tif

ie d th a t th e y w itn e s s e d E d w a rd s ’s d e te ri o ra tio n . ¶2 9. M ar i nercor r ect l y not es t hatt he C our tof A ppeal s has hel d t ha t ge ne r al i zed t es t i m ony of

s hor t - s t af

f i ng thatdoes nots how a ca s ual nex us betw een s t af f i ng and a p la in tif f’ s in ju ri e s is n o t p ro b a ti v e t o th e q u e s tio n o f l ia b ility . E sta te o f Fin ley v. B e v e rly Healt h & R eh ab . S ervs. , 933 So. 2d 102 6 (M i s s . C t . A pp. 2006) . H ow ever , i n Finley , su m m a ry ju d g m e n t w a s a p p ro p ria te in p a rt b e c a u se n o n e o f th e n u rsin g a ss ista n ts “ c o u ld r eca l l any s peci f

i c i nst ance w her e [ the r es i dent ] r ece i ved s ubs t andar d car e as a r es ul tof

### Th e journal w as comp rised o f multip le no tebo ok s wh ich E dw ards’s estate 3 

### chara ct eriz ed a s “ fami ly j ourna ls ” or “j ourna l, ” and Mariner c harac te ri ze d as a “ diary. ” 16 s hor t ages i n s t af

f i ng orl ack of

s uppl i es . ” Finley , 933 So. 2d at1036. I n the pr es entcas e, sev era l assist an ts t esti fi ed that they e ith e r p ro v ide d o r saw the e ffects o f sub stan d ard ca re on E dw ar ds . Such t es t i m ony i s ther ef or e proba t i ve underM i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E vi dence 4 0 1 . B . T es t i m ony R egardi ng W age R at es and A l l egat i ons of A l cohol C onsum pt i on i n t he W orkpl ace ¶30 . M arine r arg u es th at t esti m o n y from n u rsi n g ass ist an ts th at t h eir w ag es w ere i ns uf f i ci entw as i nadmi s s i bl e. T hey al s o co ntend tha tt es t i m ony f r om one nur s i ng as s i s t antthats he once sm el l ed al cohol on the br eath of the di r ect orof

nur s i ng atthe w orkp l a c e was i na dmi s s i bl e . H oweve r , M a r i ne rf a i l e d t o ob

j e c tt o e i the rl i ne of t es t i m ony w hen i tw as i ntr oduced. Fai l ur e t o m ake a cont empora neous obj ect i on attr i al con st i tutes a w ai ver of any err or subsequ entl y assi gn ed. M . R . E . 10 3(a) (1); Moor e v. S ta te , 7 9 9 S o . 2 d 8 9 , 9 2 (M is s . 2 0 0 1 ). C . A dm i s s i on of

t he F am i l y Journal ¶3 1 . E d w ard s’s fam il y k ep t a j o u rna l atthe n u rsin g h o m e in w h ich the y w o u ld rec o rd their ob serv a tio n s, tho u g h ts, an d fee li n g s ab o u t E d w ard s an d h is care. S taff m em b ers 3
w e re aw a re o f an d o c c a sio n a lly w ro te in the jou rn a l. P lain tiff’s c o u n se l r e p e a ted ly att em p ted to intr o d u ce the jo u rna l i n to ev iden ce d u ri n g their ca se-in-c h ief. T h e tri al co u rt al l ow ed Edw ar ds ’ s es t at e t o us e the j ournal t o r ef r es h f ami l y m ember s ’ r ecol l ect i ons , but r es erved rul i ng on i t s admi s s i bi l i ty. A tthe end of M ar i ner ’ s def

ens e, the tr i al courtf

ound

### 17

thatthe j ournal w as adm i s s i bl e underM i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E vi dence 801( d) ( 1) t o r ebutthe i nf er ence of

r ece ntf abr i cat i on and al s o underR ul e 803 as an exc ept i on t o hear s ay. T he t r i al j ud ge a l s o f

ou nd the j ou rna l was mor e p r ob a t i ve tha n pr e j ud i c i a l u nd e rRul e 403. T he tr i al courtdi d nots peci fy un der w hi ch of the hea r s ay exc ept i ons t o R ul e 803 the jo u rn a l fe ll. E d w a rd s’s e sta te a rg u e s th a t, i f th e jo u rn a l is n o t ad m iss ib le u n d e r R u le 80 1(d)( 1) as a pri or consi st en t st atem ent, i ti s adm i ssi ble unde r R ule 803(1) as a c o lle c tio n o f p re s e n t- s e n s e im p re s s io n s . ¶32 . U nd er R ule 801(d)( 1), a pri or consi st en t st atem en t w il l no t be de em ed h ears ay so l ong as ( 1) the w i tnes s t es t i f i es attr i al and i s s ubj ectt o cr os s - exami nat i on conce rni ng the s t at ement , and ( 2) the st at em ent i s of f er ed t o r ebutan expr es s ori m pl i ed cha r ge of r ece nt f abr i cat i on ori m pr operi nf l uence orm ot i ve. M . R . E . 801 (d) (1) . T he ava i l abi l i ty of the w i tnes s i s ther ef

or e a pr er equi s i t e f

ort he i ntr oduct i on of a pr i orconsi s t entst at ement . T he E dw ar ds ’ s f

ami l y j ournal cont ai ns a numberof entr i es by E dw ar ds ’ s s i s t erShi r l ey Pow el l , w ho was d e c e a s e d by the t i me o f tr i a l . Thos e p ort i on s o f the j ou rna l c oul d not have be en i ntr oduced t o r ebu tan inf er ence of

r ece ntf abr i cat i on beca us e ther e w as no tes tim o n y a t tr ia l to re b u t. B e c a u se th e trial c o u rt d id n o t d istin g u ish b e tw e e n sta tem e n ts m a d e b y tes tify in g fa m ily m e m b e rs a n d n o n -te stify in g f a m ily m e m b e rs, it w a s e rro r to f i nd thatj ournal entr i es m ade by non- t es t i fyi ng fami l y m ember s w er e nothear s ay under R u le 8 0 1 . ¶33. T he tr i al cou rtal so fou n d the jou rna l ad m issi b le unde r the present -s ense im p re s s io n e x c e p tio n to th e h e a rs a y ru le . See M . R . E . 803( 1). E xcep t i ons t o the hea r s ay rul e, unl i ke s t at ement s w hich ar e nothear s ay underR ul e 801, ar e exe m ptf r om the

### 18

avai l abi l i ty rul e. Pr es ent - s ens e i m pr es s i ons ar e exem pt ed f r om the rul e aga i ns thear s ay beca us e the cont empora neous nes s of the occ urr ence of

the eventand t he s t at ementr ender i tu n l i k e l y th a tth e d e c l a r a n tma d e a d e l i b e r a t e o rc o n s c i o u s mi s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . M . R. E. 8 0 3 (1 ) c m t. 1 . ¶3 4. T o be a dmi s s i bl e a s a pr e s e nt - s e ns e i mpr e s s i on , a gi ve n s t a t e ment mus t mee tt hr ee r equi r ement s : F i rs t , the s t at ementm us tbe made w hi l e the eve ntorcondi t i on i s bei ng percei ved by the d ecl arantor “i m m ediat ely thereaf t er”; second , the d ecl arantm ust “pe r c e i ve ” the e ve nto rc on di t i on ; a nd f i na l l y, the s t a t e mentmus td e s c r i be o re xp l a i n the e v e n t o r c o n d iti o n . M .R .E . 8 0 3 (1 ); s ee al s o P e ters o n v. S ta te , 51 8 S o. 2d 63 2, 64 0 (M i ss. 1 9 8 7 ). A cruc ial elem en t o f th e reli ab il ity of a pre sen t- sen se im p ression i s its spon t aneity. T he d et erm i nati on of spontanei ty “is a qu est ion fo r the tri al j ud ge w ho se act i on i n admi t t i ng the s t at ements houl d notbe hel d t o be err orunl es s thi s C our tw oul d be j us t i f i ed i n c on c l ud i ng tha tun de ra l l a nd a ny r e a s on a bl e i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the f a c t s t he expl anat i on coul d nothave be en s pont aneous . ” E v a n s v . S ta te , 54 7 S o. 2d 38 , 41 (M i ss. 1989) ( quot i ng H

a rr is v . S ta te , 3 9 4 S o . 2 d 9 6 , 9 8 (M iss. 1 9 8 1 )). ¶35. G i ven the s tr ong def er ence ow ed t o t he tr i al court , w e do notf i nd thatadmi s s i on of the j ournal cons t i tut ed r ever s i bl e err or . M os tof the j ournal entri es i ndi cat e the dat e and t i m e of the entry s o thatthe tr i al j udge coul d reas onabl y have i nt erpr et ed s uch entr i es as bei ng s pont aneous . H ow ever , w e not e thatE dw ar d’ s es t at e pr es ent ed no evi dence and th e tr ial ju d g e c o n d u c ted n o in q u iry to v e rify th a t each entr y i n the j ournal w as co n tem p o ran eo u s w ith fam il y m em b ers’ o b serv ati o n s o f E d w ard s. W h il e su ch an inq u iry m ay be bur dens om e, “s pont anei ty” i s r equi r ed f orthe admi s s i bi l i ty of

any evi dence under

### 19

the p rese n t- sen se im p ression t o th e h ea rsay rule an d , as a ge n era l p rac ti ce , sho u ld b e m o re th o ro u g h ly in q u ir e d u p o n in th e fu tu re . See M .R .E . 8 0 3 (1 ); s ee als o P e terso n v. S ta te , 518 So. 2d 632, 640 ( M i s s . 1987) . N everthel ess, in t his cas e, w e f i nd s uppor tthatthe jo u rn a l en tries w e re , a s a w h o le, c o n tem p o ra n e o u s a n d th a t th e trial c o u rt d id n o t co m m it re v e rs ib le e rr o r i n a d m ittin g th e jo u rn a l. D . E x clu sion o f L a b o r-H o u r R ep o rts ¶3 6. D ur i ng di s cover y, E dw ards’ s est at e request ed all dail y ti m e sheet s t hat d o c u m e n ted th e d a y -to -d a y sta ffin g lev e ls a t G re e n w o o d H e a lth a n d f ile d a m o tio n to compel pr oduct i on af

t erthe dai l y t i m e s heet s w er e notpr oduced. M ar i nerm ai nt ai ned thatthe dai l y t i m e s heet s had notbeen pr es erved, butpr ovi ded w eekl y s um m ari es of staffi n g leve ls th at ha d b ee n p rod u ce d in the n o rm al co u rse o f bu sin ess. T w o d ay s b efo re tr i al , M ar i nerdel i ver ed more than 10, 00 0 pages of r ecor ds t o def

ens e couns el , i ncl udi ng th e d a ily tim e sh e e ts in q u e stio n . D e fe n se c o u n se l m a in tain e d th a t th e fa ilu re to tim e ly pr oduce the t i m e s heet s w as an i nadvert enterr or . E dw ar ds ’ s es t at e moved to exc l ude t he w e e k ly lab o r-h o u r su m m a rie s, a rg u in g th a t th e re w a s n o t en o u g h tim e to v e rify th e ir acc ur acy a gai ns tthe dail y t i m e shee t s . T he tr i al j udge cons i der ed the admi s s i bi l i ty of the lab o r-h o u r re p o rts o n th e se c o n d d a y o f tria l. H e q u e s tio n e d w h e th e r a c o n tin u a n c e c o u ld re m e d y th e d isc o v e ry v io latio n , b u t u lti m a tely fo u n d th a t th e fa ilu re to p ro d u c e th e d a ily t i me s h e e t s ma t e r i a l l y p r e j u d i c e d E d wa r d s ’ s e s t a t e , a n d h e th e r e f o r e e x c l u d e d t h e m. He f ur ther de t er m i ned thatthe l abor - hourr eport s had t o be exc l uded bec aus e they coul d not b e v e ri fi e d a g a in s t th e d a ily tim e s h e e ts .

### 20

¶ 3 7 . T h e a p p ro p ri a te n e s s o f d is c o v e ry s a n c tio n s , li k e o th e r e v id e n tiary ru lin g s, re sts w ith in th e so u n d d isc re tio n o f th e trial c o u rt, an d w ill b e re v e rs e d o n ly if th a t d isc re tio n is a b u s e d . M

& M P ip e & P re ss u re V

e ss e l Fa b r ic a to rs, In c . v. R o b e rts , 531 So. 2d 615, 6 2 0 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ). W e h av e a rt iculated the p roc ed u re fo r ad d ressing a d isco v ery vi ol at i on: U n d e r o u r ru les o f c iv il p ro c e d u re , failu re to m a k e o r c o o p e ra te in d isco v ery sh o u ld fi rstb e re so lved b y m ak ing a m o ti o n in th e p rop er c o u rt re q u e stin g a n o rd e r c o m p e lli n g su c h d isc o v e ry . T h e re m e d y fo r fa ili n g to c o m p ly w ith th e d isc o v e ry re q u e s ts w h e n th e trial c o u rt g ra n ts a n o rd e r to compel f al l s underM . R . C . P. 37( a) ( 4) i n the f orm o f aw ar di ng the movi ng par ty the e xp e ns e s f

ors uc h mot i on . A f

t e rs uc h a n o r de rt o c ompe l ha s been g ra n ted u n d e r M .R .C .P . 3 7 (a )(2 ), an d th e p a rty o rd e re d to a n sw e r fa ils to r e s po nd , the n the r e medy may be s a nc t i on s i n a c c or da nc e w i th M . R. C. P. 3 7 (b). Car acci v. I nt 'l P aperCo. , 6 9 9 S o . 2 d 5 4 6 , 5 5 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ) (i n terna l c itati o n s o m itted). O ne pos s i bl e s anct i on i s i s s ui ng an or der“pr ohi bi t i ng [ the of f endi ng party] f

r om i ntr oduci ng des i gnat ed mat t er s i n evi dence . ” M . R . C . P. 37( b) ( 2) ( B ) . H ow ever , the e x c lu s io n o f e v id e n c e is a la s t r e s o rt . Mc Co llu m v. Fra n k lin , 60 8 S o. 2d 69 2, 69 4 (M i ss. 1992) . “Ever y r eas onabl e al t ernat i ve means of as s uri ng the el i m i nat i on of any pr ej udi ce t o the movi ng party and a prop er sa nct i on agai ns tthe of f endi ng party s houl d be expl or ed bef or e or der i ng excl us i on. ” Id . ¶38. T he exc l us i on of the l abor - hour r epo rt s w as w el l w i thi n the di s cr et i on of the tr i al c o u rt. T h e trial ju d g e c o n sid e re d w h e th e r a c o n tin u a n c e to re v iew th e d a ily tim e sh e e ts w ou l d cu re the p rej ud i ce t o E dw ard s’s est at e, determ i ned that a conti nu ance w ou l d p ush th e trial b a c k a lm o st a y e a r, an d ru led th a t th e o n ly m e a n s o f p re v e n tin g p re ju d ice w a s to e x c l u d e th e t i me s h e e t s . Th e l a b o r - h o u rr e p o r t s we r e c o mp i l e d f r o m th e d a i l y t i me

### 21

s heet s , butpr ovi ded onl y aver ages of the w or k hour s p rovi ded t o r es i dent s eac h w eek, and di d notpr ecl ude the pos s i bi l i ty thatthe nur s i ng hom e w as under s t af f ed on a gi ven day. T he tr i al j udge ther ef or e rul ed thatthe admi s s i on of the l abor - hourr eport s w as i nappr opri at e o nce the dai l y t i m e s heet s had bee n excl uded. M ar i ner ’ s r el i ance on Fe rg u so n v. Sn e ll , 9 0 5 S o . 2 d 5 1 6 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ), is m isp lac e d . T h e su m m a ry re p o rts in Fer gus on w e re c re a te d b y a c o m p u te r a u to m a tic a lly g e n e ra tin g in fo rm a tio n . Id at520. I n thatcas e, i tw as unnece s s ary t o cal l as w i tnes s es the i ndi vidual s w ho i nputthe i nf or m at i on i nt o the comput ers ys t em, i n partbeca us e ther e w as no r eal ques t i on w hether th e in fo rm a tio n p ro d u c e d d if f e r e d f r o m th e in fo rm a tio n e n te re d in to th e s y s te m . Id . In the pr es entcas e, by contr as t , ther e w as s i gni f i cantcont ent i on w hetherthe l abor - hour re p o rts a c c u ra tely d e p icte d the lev e l of ca re at G re e n w o o d H e a lth , sin c e th e re p o rts pr es ent ed ave r ages thatdi d notpr ecl ude s hor t - s t af f i ng on a gi ven day. G i ven the im p o rt ance o f the is sue of st aff i ng attri al , and i n li gh tof the seri ou sness of M ari ner’s di s covery vi ol at i on t o the cas e, the tr i al c our tdi d note rri n e xcl udi ng the l abor - hour r eport s f r om evi dence . E . P a rtial E x clu sion o f T estim o n y o f D r. W o o d H iatt ¶39. E dw ar ds ’ s es t at e pr of f er ed D r . W ood H i at t , a l i censed d octoran d ps ychi atr i s t , as an expe r ton the ef

f ect s E dw ards’ s profound ha ndi caps had on hi s l i f e and the l i m i t at i ons thos e handi caps w oul d pl ace on a car egi ver ’ s abi l i ty t o pr ovi de tr eatm entt o hi m . M ar i ner obj ect ed t o H i att ’ s des i gnat i on as an expe r ti n gener al m edi ci ne, ar gui ng thathe had not p ra c tice d g e n e ra l m e d ic in e in th irty -fo u r y e a rs a n d d id n o t p o ss e ss th e re q u isite k n o w ledg e a b o u t E d w ard s’s trea tm en t op ti o n s. A ft er a ll o w ing b o th side s to e x p lore

### 22

H i att ’ s qual i f

i cat i ons , the tr i al courtrul ed thatH i attw as qual i fi ed t o of f eropi ni ons about E dw ar ds ’ s r et ar dat i on, butcoul d nott es t i f y t o m att er s of

gener al m edi ci ne. ¶4 0. T he de c i s i on w he the r a n ex pe r t i s qu a l i f i e d r e s t s i n t he s ou nd di s c r e t i on of the t r i al c o u rt . Sm ith v. S ta te , 530 So. 2d 155, 162 ( M i s s . 1988) . R ul e 702 of the M i ssi s s i ppi R u les o f E v id e n c e sta tes th a t, “if sc ien tific, tec h n ica l, o r o th e r sp e c ializ e d k n o w led g e w ill assi stthe tr i er of

factt o u nd ers t and th e ev iden ce or t o d et erm i ne a facti n is sue, a w i tness q u ali fi ed as a n ex p ert by k n o w ledg e, skil l, ex p erien ce , tr ainin g , o r e d u c a ti o n , m ay test if y there to in the form o f an o p inion o r oth erw ise. ” T h e re leva n t inq u iry is th ere fore

“ w h e th e r th e p a rticu lar w itn e ss re a lly is a n e x p e rt in th e fie ld in w h ich h e o r sh e is t ender ed. ” Stanley , 614 So. 2d at951; H ar r is v. Shi elds , 568 So . 2d 26 9 , 2 7 2 (M i ss. 1 9 9 0 ). ¶41. E dw ar ds ’ s es t at e ar gues thatH i at thas been a cce pt ed as an expe r ti n gener al m edici ne in n u m erous cases, and that w e hav e nev er bef ore que st i on ed h i s quali fi cat i on s. T hi s cont ent i on m i s s es the poi nt . W hi l e atl eas tone ca s e held an expertqual i f i ed bas ed o n a p re v io u s d e s ig n a tio n b y th is C o u rt , s ee Stanley , 6 1 4 S o . 2 d a t 9 5 1 , n o th in g in R u le 702 w oul d pr eventtw o tr i al judges i n the exe r ci s e of s eas oned cons i der at i on f r om comi ng t o tw o di f

f er entconcl usi on s r egar di ng the qual i f i cat i on of

an expe r t . T he part i es conduct ed an e xt ens i ve voi rdi r e of H i att ’ s qual i fi cat i on s t o t es t i f y t o the tr eatm entthat s houl d have be en pr ovi ded t o E dw ar ds i n l i gh tof hi s extr eme w ei ghtl os s . T he tr i al j udge ruled tha t H iatt w a s n o t f am il iar en o u g h w ith tho se treatm en t op ti o n s to o ffer an ex p ert opi ni on. T her e w as no err ori n part i al l y excl udi ng hi s t es t i m ony. V. J URY I NS TR UCT I ONS

### Th e precise lan gu age o f these in structio ns is, o f course, crucial. B ecause o f their 4 

### le ngth, the y havebee n appe nded t o thi s opinion. 23 ¶4 2. M ar i nercont ends t hatt he tr i a l c ou r te rr e d i n g r a nt i ng j ury i ns truc t i on s ni ne , t e n, a n d n i n e t e e n . I n s tru c t i o n s Ni n e a n d Te n d e f i n e d “ a b u s e ” a n d “ n e g l e c t ” a s th o s e t e r ms 4
ar e f ound i n the M i s s i s s i ppi V ul ner abl e A dul t s A ct , M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 4 3 -47 -5 (R ev . 2 0 0 2 ), an d stat ed that the d efe n d an t or d efe n d a n ts w ere li ab le i f th e jury f ound thatei therabuse or n eglec tof E dw ar ds had occ urr ed due t o thatdef endant ’ s or def endant s ’ act i on s. I ns truct i on N i net een l i s t ed a numberof the f eder al r egul at i ons r el at ed t o car e thatar e appl i cabl e t o l ong- t erm car e f aci l i t i es , and s t at ed thatany vi ol at i on of thos e r egul at i ons coul d be cons i der ed as evi dence of negli gence. I n cons i der i ng w hetherthe gr antor ref usal o f an i ns truct i on cons t i tut es r ever s i bl e err or , w e r ead the i ns truct i ons actual l y gi ven as a w hol e and w i l l notr ever s e a ve r di cts o l ong as the i ns truct i ons , t aken t ogether , f ai r l y announce the l aw of the cas e and c r eat e no i nj us t i ce. W hitten v. Cox , 799 So. 2d 1, 16 ( M i ss. 2 00 0) . D ef ect s i n s peci f

i c i ns truct i ons do not req u ir e re v ersa l "w h ere all instruction s tak en as a w h o le fair ly--alth o u g h n o t perfec tl y -- ann ou n ce the ap pli cable pri m ary rules of l aw . " P eoples B ank & T r ust Co. v. Cerm ack , 658 So. 2d 1352, 1356 ( M i s s . 1995) . H ow ever , i f thos e i ns truct i on s do notf ai r l y or a d e q u a te ly in s tru c t th e ju ry , w e w ill r e v e rs e . I d. A . U s e of

St at e and F ederalR egul at i ons t o I nf orm t he St andard of C are ¶43. M ar i nerar gues thatthe j ury instruct i on s am ou nted t o t he cre at i on of a ca us e of act i on i n vi ol at i on of

the w el l - r ecogni zed pr i nci pl e thats t atut es i n der ogat i on of the c o m m o n la w a re s trictly c o n stru e d a n d d o n o t ex ten d liab ili ty b e y o n d th a t w h ich is c lea rly

### 24

in d ica ted b y the ir ex p re s s te rm s . See W ar r en v. G las coe , 88 0 S o. 2d 10 34 , 10 37 (M i ss. 2004) . H ow ever , the i ns truct i ons di d notpurpor tto cr eat e a c aus e of act i on bas ed on the s o- cal l ed M i ni m um St andar ds . I ns t ead, the i nst ruct i ons us ed the def i ni t i ons of

“abus e” an d “n eg lect” ad o p ted b y the L eg isla tu re to h elp e stab li sh the s tand ard o f ca re fo r a n u rs in g h o m e . ¶44. E dw ar ds ’ s es t at e ar gues thatthe defi nit i on s of abus e and ne gl ectar e pr oper gi ven thi s C our t ’ s pr i nci pl e thatvi ol at i ons of s t atut es can be i ntr oduced a s evi dence of n e g lig e n c e . See , e. g. , A ccu- Fab & Constr. , I nc. v. L adner , 77 8 S o. 2d 76 6, 77 1 (M i ss. 2001) , ( us e of

O SH A r egul at i ons w as noterr orw her e they w er e admi t t ed nott o s how n eg li g en ce b u t as a m ea su re o f reaso n ab le ca re c o n sist en t w ith ind u stry stan d ard s),
over r ul ed on othergr ounds , Ma c kT ru c ks, In c . v. T

a c k e tt , 8 4 1 S o . 2 d 1 1 0 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ); Snapp v. H

ar r is on , 699 So. 2d 567, 570 ( M i s s . 1997) ( quot i ng Munfor d, I nc. v. P eters on , 368 So. 2d 213, 217 ( M i ss. 1 979) ( vi ol at i on of the St andar d B ui l di ng C ode w as e v id e n c e o f n e g lig e n c e p e r se , tho u g h n e g lig e n c e d id n o t es tab lish c a u sa tio n ); T hom as v. McD o n a ld , 667 So. 2 d 594, 596 ( M i s s . 1995) ( vi ol at i on of s t atut es governi ng m ot or v e h icle o p e ra tio n c o n stitu ted n e g lig e n c e ). H o w e v e r, th e M iss iss ip p i V u ln e ra b le A d u lts A c t ad d re ss e s o n ly w ill fu l ac ts o r o m iss io n s th a t in ju re v u ln e ra b le a d u lts . See M i s s C ode A nn. § 43- 47- 19 ( R ev. 2004) . E dw ar ds ’ s es t at e al l eges negl i gentact s and o m i ss i ons of the h om e an d it s st aff

w ere the p roxi m at e cause o f Ed w ards’ s i njur i es and d eat h. B ecause th e M in im u m S tan d a rd s a d d re ss o n ly w ill fu l v io latio n s, th e y c a n n o t b e e m p lo y e d to e s ta b lis h th e s ta n d a rd o f c a re a p p lic a b le in a n e g lig e n c e s u it.

### 25

¶4 5. T he ques t i on re m ai ns w he the rI ns truc t i on s N i ne a nd Ten , t a ke n t og e the rw i th t he o th e r in stru c tio n s, a c c u ra tely in stru c ted th e ju ry re g a rd in g th e sta n d a rd o f c a re a p p lica b le i n a n e gl i ge nc e s ui t . Thou gh the u s e o f the M i ni mum St a nd a r ds mi gh th a ve b e e n e r r or had they bee n the onl y bas i s f ores t abl i s hi ng the s t andar d of car e, i n the pr es entcas e, the instruction s g iven d id n o t dev iat e sig n if ican tl y from the s tand ard estab li sh ed b y the e x p ert t es t i m ony of

M ar i ner ’ s expertw i tnes s and the di r ect orof nur s i ng atG r eenw ood H eal th. In lig h t o f th is e x p e rt tes tim o n y , In s tr u c tio n s N in e a n d T e n w e re su ffic ien tly a c c u ra te to w ith s ta n d s c ru tin y re g a rd in g th e s ta n d a rd o f c a re . ¶4 6. M a r i ne r a l s o ob

j e c t s t o I ns truc t i on N i ne t e e n, w hi c h s t a t e d tha t vi ol at i on of f eder al r egul at i ons m ay be c ons i der ed evi dence of negl i gence , as an i m perm i s s i bl y vague a nd abs tr acts t at ementof

the l aw . T he ca s es ci t ed by M ar i nerar e unper s uas i ve, s i nce they a d d re s s e d in s tru c tio n s fa r m o r e i n s c ru ta b le th a n th e o n e a t is s u e h e re . See Fred' s Stores, I nc. v. M & H D r ugs, I

nc. , 725 So. 2d 902, 917- 18 ( M i s s . 1998) ( gr ant i ng of i ns truct i ons re g a rd in g , am o n g o th e r th in g s, th e a b stra c t ele m e n ts o f a to rt, w ith o u t an y c o n n e c tio n to th e fac ts o f th e ca se , w a s e rro r, bu t ultim a tely h a rm les s); Fr eez e v. T aylor , 257 So. 2d 509, 511 ( M i s s . 1972) ( f i ndi ng thatthe i ns t ruct i on “[ t ] he C our ti ns truct s the j ury f orthe d e fe n d a n t th a t li a b ili ty re sts n o t u p o n d a n g e r b u t u p o n n e g lig e n c e ,” w a s a n im p e rm iss ib ly v a g u e a n d a b s tr a c t s ta te m e n t o f th e law ). In th e a ltern a tiv e , M a rin e r a rg u e s th a t th is in s tru c ti o n c r e a te s a c a u s e o f a c tio n w h e re n o n e w a s in te n d e d . W ar r en , 880 So. 2d at 1 0 3 7 . H o w ev er, un d er Moo re , f eder al r egul at i on s appl i cabl e t o nur s i ng hom es m ay be
u s e d to in fo rm th e s ta n d a rd o f c a re . Moo re , 8 2 5 S o . 2 d a t 6 6 5 . W h il e w e find the fo rm of I ns truct i on N i net een t o be f l aw ed, part i cul ar l y r egar di ng the ci t at i ons t o feder al

### 26

re g u la tio n s in th e b o d y o f t h e in s tru c tio n , w e d o n o t f in d t h is t o b e re v e rs ib le e rr o r. W e caut i on agai ns tthe us e of j ury i ns truct i ons r eci t i ng r egul at i ons as pot ent i al l y bei ng vague an d ab str ac t as th ere is no co n n ec ti o n relati n g the fa cts t o the e lem en ts o f st an d ard o f ca re a n d c a u sa tio n . T h e a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r is w ith o u t m e rit. B . W h eth er th e In stru ction s A llo w ed C o n side ra ti o n o f the S ep a ra te C onduc t of

Each Def

e ndant . ¶47. M ar i ner cl ai m s that t he t ri al court comm i t t ed r ever s i bl e err or by not i ns truct i ng the j ury t o cons i derthe s epar at e d ef ens es and s t andar ds of car e appl i cabl e t o the nur s i ng hom e, the par entcompany and i t s s ubs i di ar i es, and the of f i cer s of thos e compani es . T he tr i al courtdeni ed M ar i ner ’ s pr opos ed i ns truct i on D - 35, w hi ch s t at ed: A l though ther e i s m or e than one D ef endanti n thi s s ui t , itd oes notf ol l ow fro m th a t fac t alon e tha t if on e is li ab le al l are l iable. E ac h D efe n d a n t is ent i t l ed t o a f

ai rand s epar at e cons i der at i on of thatD ef endant ’ s def

ens e and i s not t o b e prej ud i ced b y y ou r deci si on as t o the ot hers. U nles s ot he rw is e s t at ed, the i ns truct i ons appl y t o the ca s e of eac h D ef

endant . D eci de ea ch D e fe n d a n t’ s c a s e s e p a ra te ly . See a l so M i ss. P ract . M od el Jury I nst r. C i vil 1:18, M i ssi ssi pp i Judici al C oll ege (W est 2007) . T he tr i al co urthel d thatthe pr opos ed i ns truct i on w as m i s l eadi ng and thatM ar i ner c o u ld a rg u e its p o in t in c lo s in g a rg u m e n t. ¶48. A party i s ent i t l ed t o a jur y i nst ruct i on so l ong as i tconce rns a genui ne i s s ue of m a te ri a l f

a c t a n d t h e r e is c re d ib le e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt th e in s tru c tio n . D eLau ghterv. L aw r ence Cou nt

y H os p. , 6 0 1 S o . 2 d 8 1 8 , 8 2 4 (M iss . 1 9 9 2 ); see al so Copeland v. Cit

y of Jacks on , 548 So. 2d 970, 973 ( M i s s . 1 989) . H ow ever , thi s C our tw i l l notr ever s e bas ed on the deni al of

an i ns truct i on unl es s i ti s s how n thatthe i ns truct i ons , t aken as a w hol e, do n o t f a ir ly p re s e n t th e a p p lic a b le la w . W hitten , 7 9 9 S o . 2 d a t 1 6 .

### 27

¶4 9. W e f

i nd t hatt he t r i al cour ter r e d i n d e ny i ng M a r i ne r ’ s pr op os e d i ns truc t i on on s epar at e cons i der at i on. T he st at ementw as nei therm i s l eadi ng noran i ncorr ects t at ement of t he l aw , a nd the i s s ue of w hi c h Def

e nd a ntw a s l i a bl e f

orw ha tc on du c tw a s the pi vo t al i s s ue i n the ca s e. T he neg l i gence al l eged by Edw ar ds ’ s es t at e w as m ul t i pl e and va r i ed, ext endi ng f

r om the act i on s of t he nur s i ng as s i s t ant s i n an i ndi vi dual f aci l i ty t o the insti tuti o n al po li ce s set at th e h igh est lev e ls of the c o rpo rati o n . T h e stan d ard o f ca re appl i cabl e t o the nur s i ng s t af f and the di r ect orof

nur s i ng w as notthe sam e as that appl i cabl e t o corpor at e of f i cer s w ho s etbudget ary gui del i nes f or t he par entcorpor at i on. Is s u e s o f m a te ri a l f

a c t s u p p o rt e d b y c re d ib le e v id e n c e ju s tif ie d th e in s tru c tio n . ¶5 0. T he deni al of

t he pr opos ed i ns t ruct i on, t a ke n t og e the rw i t h t he ambi gui t y of se v e ra l in stru c tio n s re g a rd in g th e se p a ra te c o n d u c t o f e a c h D e fe n d a n t, faile d to adequa t el y pr es entthe l aw o f t he cas e. I ns truct i ons N i ne and Ten, out l i ni ng the s t andar ds of n e gl e c ta nd a bu s e , wer e p r op e r l y gr a nt e d a s c orr e c ts t a t e ment s o f the l a w . E ach i ns truct ed the j ury thatif i tf ound f orE dw ar ds ’ s es t at e as t o negl ectorabus e, the ver di ct s houl d onl y be a gai ns tthos e D ef endant s w hos e negl ectora bus e pr oxi m at el y cau s ed E d w a rd s ’s in

ju ri e s . T h e tr ia l c o u rt d id n o t e rr in g ra n tin g th e s e in s tru c tio n s . ¶5 1. H ow ever , ot heracce pt ed i ns t ruct i on s l e f tthe qu e s t i on of

s e pa r a t e c on s i de r at i on o p a q u e . F o re x a mp l e , i n o u t l i n i n g th e e l e me n t s o f Ed wa r d s ’ s ne g l i g e n c e c l a i m, I ns truct i on Fi ve s t at ed as an el ementof the t or tthat“the D ef

endant s s houl d have be en r eas ona bl y a w a r e of

Char l e s Edw a r ds ’ [ s ] c on di t i on . ” W hi l e s uc h a n i ns truc t i on i s pr oper as t o G r eenw ood H eal th, i ti s nota pr operi ns truct i on agai ns totherdef endant s s uch as N a tio n a l H e ritag e R e a lty , w h ich o w n e d th e n u rsin g h o m e b u t p re su m a b ly h a d little if

### 28

any thing t o d o w i th p ati en ts’ m ed ical recor ds, or even M ari ner H eal th C are, w hich as a par entcorpor at i on, coul d notr eas onabl y be expe ct ed t o be aw ar e of the s peci f

i c medi cal need s of one o f i t s pat i ents . ¶52. In case s invo l ving ser vice pr ov i ders and thei r par ent corpo rat i on s, t he j ust adjudi cat i on of c l ai m s demands thatpart i es be hel d r es pons i bl e f orany br eac hes of

the dut i es i m po sed u pon t hem by l aw . B uta pl ai nt i f f m us tcar ef

ul l y es t abl i s h w hatduty w as o w e d b y w h o m a n d h o w it w a s n o t m e t, an d th e trial c o u rt m u st in su re th a t th e ju ry is equi pped t o cons i derd i s t i nctcl ai m s and t o as s es s l i abi l i ty j udi ci ous l y. B eca us e thatw as n o t d o n e in th is c a s e , th e ju ry ’s v e rd ic t m u s t b e re v e rs e d . VI . LI ABI LI TY OF ADM I NI S TRATO RS AND LI CENSE ES ¶53. M ar i ner m ai nt ai ns that the tr i al court err ed i n gr ant i ng j ury i nst ruct i ons E l even a nd T w e nty, whi c h i ns truc t e d the j ury tha tthe tw o nu r s i ng h ome l i c e ns e e s a nd the t hr ee nur s i ng hom e admi ni s tr at or s ow ed a d uty of ca r e t o the r es i dent s of the home. W e have re c e n tly ru led th a t n u rsin g h o m e lice n se e s a n d a d m in istra to rs o w e d u ties to th e ir empl oyer s , butthatthey ow e no comm on- l aw ors t atut ory dut y t o t he r es i dent s of the h o m e . See How ar d v. E s tate of H ar per , 947 So. 2d 854 ( M i s s. 2 00 6). I n l i ghtof How ar d v. H

ar per , th e lic e n s e e s a n d a d m in is tr a to rs m u s t b e d is m is s e d fr o m th e s u it. ¶54 . M arine r arg u es th at t h e im p rop er joind er of the l i cen see s an d ad m inistrators r equi r es r ever s al . H ow ever , und erM i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 11- 3- 37 ( R ev. 2002) , “one of

s ever al appel l ant s s hal l notbe ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entof r ever s al beca us e of a n e rr o r i n th e ju d g m e n t o r d e c re e a g a in s t a n o th e r, no t aff ec ti nghis ri

gh t s i n the case .” ( E m phas i s added) . M i s s i s s i ppi has a pau ci t y of cas es addr es s i ng the i m pactof the

### 29

dis m i ssal of one o r m ore part i es on ap peal on t he int ere sts of the rem ai ning part i es. H ow ever , the mi s

j oi nderof t he l i cens ees and admi ni s tr at or s di d noti n any w ay pr ej udi ce M ar i ner . T hough thi s C our thel d i n How ar d th a tl i c e n s e e s a n d a d mi n i s tr a t o r s d o n o to we a duty of car e t o the r es i dent s , they do ow e a duty t o thei remployer. A s such, the part i es coul d have bee n cal l ed by Edw ar ds ’ s es t at e t o pr ovi de r el evantt es t i m ony. Fur therm or e, the r ecor d demonstr at es thatal l of the l i censees and adm i ni s tr at or s di d nott es t i f y, and thos e w ho di d s ai d l i t t l e thatadvanc ed the ca s e aga i ns tM ar i ner . W hi l e the l i cens ees and adm i nis t rat or s m us tbe di s m i s s ed f r om the s ui ton r emand, no t enabl e bas i s exi s t s f or di s m i s s i ng the co m pl ai ntagai ns tM ar i ner . T he as s i gnm entof err ori s corr ectas t o the in d iv id u a l a d m in is tr a to rs a n d lic e n s e e s , b u t is w ith o u t m e ri t a s to M a ri n e r. VI I . W HET HER I T I S I NCUM BE NT UP ON THI S COURT TO DET ER M I NE THE S COP E OF BA NKRUP TC Y ST I PUL AT I ON AUT HORI Z I NG EDW ARD S ’ S S UI T. ¶55. A f

t er E dw ar ds enter ed G reenw ood H eal th i n D ece m ber 1994, but bef or e Edw ar ds f i l ed hi s or i gi nal compl ai nton D ece m ber7, 2001, and bef or e he di ed on February 16, 2002, M ar i nerf

i l ed f orbankruptcy i n the U ni t ed St at es B ankrupt cy C our tf orthe D i s tr i ct of D el aw ar e ( J anuary 18, 2000) . A f t erdi s cus s i on, Edw ar ds ’ s c ounsel and M ar i ner ent er e d i nt o a s t i pu l a t i on on M a r c h 1 2, 20 02 , on be ha l f of Edw a r ds a nd a nu mberof othe r p lain tiffs u n d e r w h ic h th e p lain tiffs c o u ld b rin g leg a l ac tio n , eith e r p re -p e tit io n o r p o stpet i t i on , d espi t e the aut om at i c s t ay i m pos ed on s uch ac t i ons by Sect i on 362 of the B ankrupt cy C ode. T he bankrupt cy courtr at i f i ed the s t i pul at i on in a C onf i r m at i on O r der on A pr i l 3, 2002.

### 30

¶56. T he s t i pul at i on hel d that l egal act i on coul d be br ought by “C harl es E . E dw ar ds , by a n d th r o u g h Nev o n n i a Tu rn e ra s Con s e r v a tr i x o f th e Us e a n d Be n e f

i tof C ha r l e s E. E dw ar ds . ” Edw ar ds amended the compl ai nton N ov em ber4, 2002, t o name as the r eal party “The E s t at e of C har l es E . E dw ar ds , by and thr ough N evon nia Tur ner , as admi ns tr atr i x of

the Est at e of

C har l es E . E dw ar ds , f

orthe use a nd benef

i tof the es t at e of Cha r l e s E . E d wa r d s , De c e a s e d , a n d th e wr o n g f u l d e a th b e n e f

i c i a r i e s o f

Ch a r l e s E. E dw ar ds , dece as ed. ” I n i t s A nsw er and D ef ens es t o the A m ended Com pl ai nt , M ar i ner as s ert ed bankrupt cy as a def ens e, ar gui ng thatE dw ar ds ’ s E s t at e w as no tn am ed i n the stip u latio n a n d w a s th e re fo re b a rre d fro m b rin g in g su it. M a rin e r a lso filed a m o tio n in li m ine, req u esti n g that the tri al co u rt en forc e the b an k rup tcy s ti p u lat ion . T h e tri al co u rt d e n ie d M a ri n e r’ s m o tio n . ¶57. W hi l e the court s of thi s s t at e have j ur i s di ct i on t o d et erm i ne w hethera pen di ng a c tio n is s tay e d b y a ru lin g o f th e b a n k ru p tcy c o u rt, w e re c o g n ize th a t sta te c o u rts “ sh o u ld cons i derde f

e rr i ng c l os e qu e s t i on s i nv ol vi ng the a pp l i c a bi l i ty o f e xc e pt i on s t o the aut om at i c s t ay under11 U . S. C . § 362( b) t o the bankrupt cy court . ” O verbey v. Murr ay , 569 So. 2d 303, 308 ( M i s s . 1990) . I n the pr es entc as e, the bankrupt cy s t i pu l at i on w as negot i at ed i n and author i zed by the bankrupt cy court . Q ues t i ons r egar di ng the s cope of the s ti p u lat ion an d the p o ssibil ity o f reco v ery u n d er the p lan a re u lt im a tely m a tters m o re pr oper l y cons i der ed by t he bankrupt cy court . W e ther ef or e dec l i ne t o i nt erpr etthe b a n k ru p tc y s tip u la tio n a n d le a v e th is d e te rm in a tio n to th e b a n k ru p tc y c o u rt . CO NC L US I ON

### 31

¶5 8. T he t r i al cour ter r ed i n de c l i ni ng t o i nv e s t i gat e M ar i ner ’ s al l egat i ons of j ur or m isc o n d u ct, i n ad m itti n g th e d ep o sit ion s of co rpo rate officers i n to ev iden ce , an d in refu si ng M ari ner’ s proposed j ury i nst ruct i on on separat e l i abil i ty. T he tr i al co u rt ’s j ud gm ent i s theref

ore r eversed, and the case rem and ed (1) w i th instruct i on s t o d i sm i ss w ith p re ju d ic e th e lic e n s e e a n d a d m in is tr a to r d e fe n d e n ts J .D . L e e , G e o rg e D . M o rg a n , M . Scot tA thans , A ngel a M . W hi t t i ngt on, C har l i e R . Si ncl ai r , J r . , and John M . M err el l , and (2 ) fo r a n e w trial c o n sis ten t w ith th is o p in io n o f p lain tiff’s c laim s a g a in st M a rin e r H e a lth C a re , In c ., G ra n c a re , In c ., E v e rg re e n H e a lth c a re , In c ., a n d N a tio n a l H e ri ta g e R e a lty , In c . ¶59. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. S M I TH, C. J . , EA S LE Y, CARL S ON, DI CKI NS ON, RANDOL P H AND LAM AR, J J . , CO NC UR . GR AVES, J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN O P I N I O N JO I N E D B Y D I A Z, P . J. A P P E N D IX J u r y I n s tr u c ti o n N o . 9 A s a r es i dentof

G r eenw ood H eal th & R ehabi l i t at i on C ent er , the D ef endant s ow ed C har l es E . E dw ar ds a duty t o exer ci s e r eas onabl e ca r e, cons i s t entw i th hi s age a nd p h y sic a l co n d iti o n , to p re v e n t th e o c c u rre n c e o f a n d to p ro tec t M r. E d w a rd s fr o m a b u se in t hei rnu r s i ng h ome. A bu s e a s u s e d i n the s e i ns truc t i on s mea ns the wi l l f ul i nf l i c t i on of p h y sic a l p a in , inju ry o r m e n tal a n g u ish o n a v u ln e ra b le a d u lt, th e u n re a so n a b le conf i nementof

a vul ner abl e adul t , o r t he w i l l f ul depr i vat i on by a ca r et akerof s ervi ces w h ich a re n e c e ss a ry to m a in tain th e m e n tal a n d p h y sic a l h e a lth o f a v u ln e ra b le a d u lt. A b u s e in c lu d e s , b u t is n o t lim ite d to , a s in g le in c id e n t.

### 32

If y o u fin d fro m a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e c re d ib le e v id e n c e th a t D e fe n d a n ts fa iled to e xe r c i s e r e a s on a bl e c a r e t o p r e ve ntthe oc c urr e nc e of ort o p r ot e c tM r . Edw a r ds f r om abus e, as d efi ned in thi s i ns truct i on, and i f you f ur therf i nd f r om a pr eponder ance of the evi dence thatas a r es ul tof s uch f ai l ur e, i f any, M r . E dw ards s uf

f er ed abus e w hi l e i n the D e fe n d a n ts’ n u rsin g h o m e , the n y o u r v e rd ict s h o u ld b e f o r th e P lain tiff a n d y o u sh o u ld a s s e s s d a m a g e s p ro x im a te ly c a u s e d to M r. E d w a rd s b y s u c h a b u s e , if a n y . Jury I nst ruct i on N o. 10 A s a r es i dentof

G r eenw ood H eal th & R ehab i l i t at i on C ent er , the D ef endant s ow ed C har l es E . E dw ar ds a duty t o exer ci s e r eas onabl e ca r e, cons i s t entw i th hi s age a nd phys i cal condi t i on, t o pr eventnegl ectof M r . E dw ar ds i n thei rnur s i ng ho m e. N egl ect m eans the f

ai l ur e of a ca r et akert o s uppl y a vul ner abl e adul tw i t h t he f ood, cl othi ng, sh e lter, h e a lth c a re , su p e rv isio n o r o th e r se rv ice s w h ich a re n e c e ss a ry to m a in tain h is m en tal an d p h y sical he alth . N eg lect i n clud es, bu t i s n o t l im it ed to, a si n g le i n cide n t. If you f i nd f r om a pr eponder ance of the cr edi bl e evi dence thatthe D ef endant s , orany of them, f ai l ed t o s uppl y M r . E dw ar ds w i th the f ood, cl othi ng, s hel t er , heal th car e, su p e rv isio n o r o th e r se rv ice s th a t a r e a so n a b ly p ru d e n t p e rso n w o u ld h a v e p ro v id e d in o rdert o m ai ntai n M r. E dw ards’ m ental and ph ysi cal heal th, and t hat as a res ultthere o f, M r . E dw ar ds s uf

f er ed i nj ury and damage, then, i n thatevent , yourver di cts houl d be f or the Pl ai nt i f

f and you s houl d as s es s al l damages pr ox i m at el y caus ed t o M r . E dw ar ds by s uch negl ectagai ns tthe D ef endantorD ef

endant s pr oven by a pr eponder ance of the e v id e n c e to b e re s p o n s ib le fo r s u c h n e g le c t, if a n y . Jury I nst ruct i on N o. 19

### 33

A tal l t i m es m at er i al t o thi s case, ther e w er e i n f or ce i n the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi r egul at i ons pr ovi di ng r equi r ement s f orl ong t erm car e f

aci l i t i es , w hi ch pr ovi ded: a. T he f aci l i ty m us tcar e f

ori t s r es i dent s i n a mannerand i n an envi r onm entthat p ro m o tes m a in ten a n c e o r e n h a n c e m e n t o f e a c h re sid e n t’s q u a lity o f life . T h e fa c ili ty m us tpr om ot e ca r e f

orr es i dent s i n a mannerand i n an env i r onm entthatm ai nt ai ns or enhanc es e a c h r e s i de nt ’ s di gn i ty a nd r e s pe c ti n f ul l r e c og ni t i on of

hi s orhe ri nd i vi du a l i t y. 4 2 C . F . R . § 4 8 3 . 1 5 (a). b. E ach r es i dentm us tr ece i ve and the f aci l i t y m ustprovi de the nec es s ary car e and s ervi ces t o att ai n orm ai nt ai n the hi ghes tpr act i cabl e phys i cal , m ent al and ps ychol ogi cal w el l - bei ng, i n acc or dance w i th the compr ehens i ve as s es s m entand pl ai n of ca r e. 42 C . F. R . § 483. 25; M i s s . M i n. St ds . § 503. 2. c. A s s es s m ent s m us tbe conduc t ed pr om pt l y af t era s i gni f

i cantchange i n the reside n t’ s p h y sical or m en tal co n d it ion . 4 2 C . F . R . § 4 8 3 . 2 0 (b)(2 )(i i) .

“Si gni f i cantchange ” means a maj ordecl i ne or i m pr ovementi n the r es i dent ’ s s t atus thatw i l l notno r m al l y r es ol ve i t s el f w i thoutf

ur ther i nt ervent i on by s t af

f orby i m pl ement i ng s t andar d di s eas e-r el at ed cl i ni cal i nt ervent i ons , thath as an i m pacton m or e than one a r ea of the r es i dent ’ s heal th s t atus , and requ i r es i nt er di s ci pl i nary r evi ew or re v is io n o f t h e c a re p la n , o r b o th . d . B ase d o n the c o m p reh en sive asse ssm en t of a res iden t, the fa cility m u st en su re that a re side n t w h o is un ab le t o ca rry o u t acti v it ies o f da il y li v ing rec e ives the n ec essa ry s e r v i c e s t o mai n t a i n g o o d n u tr i t i o n , g r o o mi n g , a n d p e r s o n a l a n d o r a l h y g i e n e . 4 2 C. F . R. § 483. 25( a) ( 3) ; M i s s . M i n. St ds . § 503. 3.

### 34

e. B ased on the co m prehen si ve assessm ent of a res i den t , the faci l i ty m usten su re th a t a r e sid e n t h a v in g p re ss u re so re s re c e iv e s n e c e ss a ry tre a tm e n t an d se rv ice s to p ro m o te h e a lin g , p re v e n t in fe c tio n a n d p re v e n t n e w so re s fr o m d e v e lo p in g a n d th a t re sid e n ts w i thoutpr es s ur e s or es do notdevel op pr ess ure s or es unl es s the r es i dent ’ s cl i ni cal condi t i on i ndi cat es t hat t hey w er e unavoi dabl e. 42 C . F. R . § 483. 25( e) ( 2) ; M i s s . M i n. St ds . § 503. 3. f.B a se d o n a re sid e n t’s c o m p re h e n siv e a ss e ss m e n t, th e fa c ili ty m u st e n su re th a t a r es i dentm ai nt ai ns acc ept abl e par amet er s of nu t ri t i onal s t atus , s uch as body w ei ght , and pr ot ei n l e ve l s , u nl e s s the r e s i de nt ’ s c l i ni c a l c on di t i on d e mons tr a t e s tha tthi s i s not pos s i bl e. 42 C . F. R . § 483. 25( i ) ( 1) ; M i s s . M i n. St ds . § 503. 9. g .T h e fa cil ity m u st pro v ide e ac h reside n t w ith su ffi cien t f luid intak e to m ainta in pr operhydr at i on and hea l th. 42 C . F. R . § 483. 25( j ) ; M i s s . M i n. St ds . § 503. 10. h. T he f aci l i ty m us tens ur e thata r es i dentw i th a l i m i t ed r ange of m ot i on r ece i ves appr opr i at e tr eatm entand s ervi ces t o i ncr eas e r ange of m ot i on and/ort o pr eventf ur ther decr eas e i n r ange of

m ot i on. 42 C . F. R . § 483. 25( e) ; M i s s . M i n. St ds . § 503. 5. i . T he f aci l i ty m us tens ur e thata r es i dentw ho i s f ed b y a feedi ng tube r ece i ves the appr opr i at e tr eatm entand s ervi ces t o pr eventas pi r at i on pneumoni a, di arrhea, vom i t i ng deh yd rat i on , and m et abo l i c abn orm ali ti es an d t o rest ore, i f possi ble, no rm al eat i ng ski l l s. 42 C . F. R . § 483. 25( g) ( 2) ; M i s s . M i n. St ds . § 503. 7. j.B a se d o n a re sid e n t’s c o m p re h e n siv e a ss e ss m e n t, th e fa c ili ty m u st e n su re th a t a res i den tw i th special need s, i ncludi ng the need forparent eral or ent eral nu tri t i on fl uids, r ece i ves pr opertr eatm entand ca r e. 42 C . F. R . § 483. 25( k) ; M i s s . M i n. St ds . § 503. 11.

### 35

k. T he f aci l i ty m us thave s uf

f i ci entnur s i ng st aff

t o pr ovi de nur s i ng and r el at ed s ervi ces t o att ai n orm ai nt ai n the hi ghes tpra ct i cabl e phys i cal , m ent al , and ps ychol ogi cal w el l - bei ng of

eac h r es i dent , as det erm i ned by r es i dentas s es s m ent s and i ndi vi dual pl ans orcar e. 42 C . F. R . § 483. 30; M i s s . M i n. St ds . § 201. 1. l.T h e fac ili ty m u st m a in tain clin ica l rec o rd s o n ea c h res id e n t i n ac c o rd a n c e w ith a c c e p ted p ro fe ss io n a l sta n d a rd s a n d p ra c tic e s th a t ar e c o m p lete a n d a c c u ra tely document ed. 42 C . F. R . § 483. 75( l ) ( 1) ( i ) ( i i ) ; M i s s . M i n. St ds . § 507. 1. m . T he f aci l i ty m us tbe admi ni s t er ed i n a mannerthatenabl es i tt o use i t s r es our ces e ffe c tiv e ly a n d e ffic ien tly to a ttain o r m a in tain th e h ig h e st p ra c tic a b le p h y sic a l, m e n tal, a n d p s y c h o lo g ic a l w e ll- b e in g o f e a c h re s id e n t. 4 2 C .F .R . § 4 8 3 .7 5 ; M is s . M in . S td s . § 403. 1. A vi ol at i on of

one orm or e o f thes e r egul at i ons , al though notnece s s ar i l y negl i gence , m ay be cons i der ed by you as evi dence of negl i gence al ong w i th al l of the otherf

act s and ci r cumst ance s i n the ca s e.

GR AV E S , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶60. B e c a u se I w o u ld a ffirm th e trial c o u rt o n a ll co u n ts, I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. ¶61. T he m aj or i ty i s corr ect that J ur or “B ” di d al l ege i n her af f i davi t that J ur or“W ” had m a d e u p h e r m in d o n th e first d a y o f tr ia l, th a t sh e k n e w a re sid e n t at G re e n w o o d H e a lth w ho r ece i ved poorcar e and thats he k new o f ot hers w ho had r ece i ved poorcar e. T he m a jo rity a lso c o rre c tly sta tes th a t th e a ffid a v it d id n o t sp e c ify w h e th e r th e sta tem e n ts re g a rd in g p o o r c a re w e re m a d e d u rin g d e lib e ra tio n s. T h e m a jo rity fin d s th a t th e a ffid a v it

### 36

i m pl i ci t l y i ncl udes J ur or“W ” among t hos e w ho m ade c ert ai n com m ents . H ow ever , the aff i dav i tcl earl y d oes no tsupp ortsuch a fi nd i ng . T he aff i dav i tst at es: I n a ddi t i on, j ur orc om m ent s dur i ng the tr i al a nd de l i ber at i on s i ncl uded s t at ement s thatthe w hi t e peopl e have been t aki ng the bl ack pe opl e’ s m oney and bl ack pe opl e have fi gure d outthatl aw s ui t s ar e the w ay t o getthe m o n e y b a c k . It w a s a lso sta ted th a t w h ite p e o p le w e re n o w try in g to p u t a cap on l aw s ui taw ar ds . I tw as ar gued t hatthe j ur or s neede d t o s t i ck to g e th e r to g e t th e m o n e y b a c k to th e b lac k p e o p le a n d tha t m o n e y sh o u ld be gi ven i n thi s cas e bec aus e the pl ai nt i f f w as bl ack. ¶62 . T his p ara g rap h fails t o a ll eg e or even sugg estthat J uror “W ” m ade an y o f these sta tem e n ts. T h e v e ry n e x t p a ra g ra p h o f th e a ffid a v it fu rth e r e s ta b lish e s th a t th is al l egat i on does notpert ai n t o J ur or“W ” and i ns t ead c an be a t tr i but ed t o “other s . ” ¶63 . R ule 606(b) of the M i ssi ssi pp i R ules of E vidence (M . R . E . ), st at es: U po n an i nq ui ry i nt o the val i di ty of a ver di ctori ndi ctm ent , a j ur orm ay not t es t i f y as t o any mat t erors t at ementoccurr i ng duri ng t he cour s e of the jury ’s de li b era ti o n s o r t o the e ffec t of a n y thing u p o n h is or an y o ther juro r’s m i nd orem oti on s as i nf l uenci ng hi m t o as s entt o ordi s s entf r om the ver di ct ori ndi ctm entorconce rni ng his m ent al pr oces s es i n connec t i on ther ew i th, exce ptthata j ur orm ay t es t i f y on the quest i on w hetherextr aneous pr ej udi ci al i nf

or m at i on w as i m pr oper l y br oughtt o the j ury’ s att ent i on or w hetherany out s i de i nf l uence w as i m pr oper l y broughtt o bearupon any ju ro r. N o r m a y h is a ffid a v it o r e v id e n c e o f a n y sta tem e n t b y h im conce rni ng a mat t eraboutw hi ch he w oul d be pr ecl uded f r om t es t i f

yi ng be recei ved forthese pu rposes. M . R . E . 6 0 6 (b). ¶ 6 4 . P u rsu a n t to M .R .E . 6 0 6 (b ), th e trial c o u rt p ro p e rl y f o u n d th a t th e ju ro r’s a ffid a v it w as notcompet entevi dence becaus e “i tatt empt s t o i m peac h a ver di ctby t es t i f yi ng about i nf l uence s af

f ect i ng del i ber at i ons and no adequat e s how i ng has been made of ext ernal in fl u e n c e s n o r e x tr a -r e c o rd fa c ts a s d e fi n e d p re v io u s ly .”

### 37

¶6 5. T he maj or i ty c on c e des t hatt he af f i davi tcont ai ned i nf

or m at i on r egar di ng t he m ent al i m pr es s i ons of

both J ur or“B ” and J ur or“W , ” butthen f i nds thatJ ur or“W ” f

ai l ed to re sp o n d to q u e stio n s d u rin g v o ir d ire . H o w e v e r, I d isa g re e . T h e m a jo rity is i m pr oper l y r el yi ng s ol el y on al l egat i ons cont ai ned i n the af f i davi t , w hi ch i s notcompet ent evidence, as suppo rtforthe fi nd i ng that J uror “W ” fai l ed to r espon d to quest i on s. ¶66. T he m aj or i ty i s corr ect that the s t andar d f or r evi ew f

or j ur or m i s conduct i n fai l i ng t o r es pond t o ques t i ons dur i ng voi rdi r e i s s etouti n O do m v. S ta te, 355 So. 2d 1381 (M is s . 1 9 7 8 ). Odo m st at es: T her ef or e, w e hol d thatw her e, as her e, a pr os pect i ve j urorin a cr i m i nal cas e f ai l s t o r es pond t o a rel evant , di r ect , and unambi guous ques t i on pr es ent ed by def

ens e couns el on voi rdi r e, al though havi ng know l edge of the i nf or m at i on s oughtt o be el i ci t ed, the tr i al courts houl d, upon m ot i on f or a new tr i al , det erm i ne w hetherthe ques t i on pr opounded t o t he j ur orw as ( 1) r el evantt o the voi rdi r e exa m i nat i on; ( 2) w het her i tw as unambi guous ; and ( 3) w hetherthe j ur orhad s ubs t ant i al know l edge o f the i nf or m at i on s ought to b e e lic ite d .” I d . at1383. ¶67. T he maj or i ty f

i nds thatJ ur or“W ” fai l ed t o res po nd to t he fol l ow i ng ques t i on by p lain tiff’s c o u n se l:

Q . E ach of

you under s t and thatw e ar e nother e f ors ym pathy, t hatw e a r e he r e f

orj us t i c e , e a c h o f

yo u u nd e r s t a nd tha t ? D o e a c h o f you her e thi nk you coul d r ecogni ze appeal t o pr ej udi ce? A n d a s y o u sit h e re to d a y , is th e re a n y b o d y w h o h a s a n y re a so n to f eel thatther e i s any r eas on thatw e have n’ tt ouched on, thatyou feel that w e ou gh tt o k no w that w ou l d ad versel y im p actyo ur abi l i ty to serve as a juro r i n this case , that w e h av en ’td iscu ssed thu s far? ¶68. T hi s qu est i on is “in t he natur e o f ‘ cat ch-al l ’ quest i on s, d es i gned t o el i ci t any i nf or m at i on f

r om j ur or s thatw oul d cause t hem not t o be i m part i al . ” T o lb e rt v . S ta te , 511

### 38

S o . 2 d 1 3 6 8 , 1 3 7 7 -7 8 (M iss . 1 9 8 7 ). T h is C o u rt h a s fo u n d g e n e ra l, ca tch -a ll q u e stio n s to b e n e c e s s a ri ly a m b ig u o u s . I d . See al s o B u c k ley v. S ta te , 77 2, S o. 2d 10 59 , 10 64 (M i ss. 2 0 0 0 ). T h is qu esti o n fail s the sec o n d p ron g o f O dom , a s c ite d h e re in . ¶69. A ddi t i onal l y, ther e is n o evidence t hatJ ur or“W ” had “ s ubs t ant i al know l edge of th e in fo rm a tio n so u g h t to b e e licite d ” u n d e r p ro n g thr e e w h e n the q u e stio n is un c lea r a s to w h a t in fo rm a tio n is e v e n b e in g s o u g h t. I d. T h is C o u rt h a s a c k n o w led g e d the d if fi c u lty i n pr ovi ng pr ong thr ee, not i ng i n O dom , that , “[ w ] e do no tsug gesthow thi s m ay be pr oved as thatque s t i on w as notr ai s ed orbr i ef ed. H ow ever , the gener al rul e i s thata j ur or m ay nott es t i f

y t o i m peac h a ver di ctre nder ed by them. ” Id . atn. 1. Fur ther , even i f J ur or “W ” had “s ubs t ant i al know l edge of the i nf orm at i on w hi ch thr ough pr operques t i ons the a tt o rne y s w ere en ti tl ed t o kn o w , ” M arine r w o u ld ha v e to estab li sh th at Juro r “ W ” w o u ld h a v e b e e n su b

jec t t o a d e fe n se ch a llen g e fo r ca u s e . T olbert 511 So. 2d at1378. M ar i ner is u n a b le to d o th a t. N o q u e stio n w a s a s k e d d u rin g v o ir d ire th a t w e n t to th e sp e c ific cl ai m s now r ai s ed i n the af f i davi t . M or eover , even i f a s peci fi c q ues t i on had bee n as ked, ther e i s no w ay t o predi cth ow J ur or“W ” mi ghthave a ns w er ed thatques t i on orany fo llo w -u p q u e s tio n s . ¶7 0 . T h e m ajority also fin d s th a t Ju ro r “ W ” fa iled to re sp o n d to a q u e stio n a s to w hether“j us tthe ment i on of a nur s i ng hom e i nvoke [ s i c] negat i ve f eel i ngs, negat i ve exper i ence ?” A gai n, thi s ques t i on i s ambi guous . Furt her, ther e i s abs ol ut el y no evi dence co n tai n ed in the affidav ito r an y w h ere else in th e re co rd e stab li sh ing that the m ere “ment i on of

a nur s i ng hom e” c aus ed J ur or“W ” t o have negat i ve f eel i ngs . T her ef

or e, the m ajority ’s fi n d ing as to this i ssu e li k ew ise fail s b o th p ron g s tw o an d three o f O dom .

### Only nineor morejuror s ar e nec es sary for a civi l verdic t. Mis s. Code Ann. §13-5- 93 5 

### (Rev . 20 02 ). 39 ¶7 1. T her e i s abs ol ut el y no evi dence bef or e thi s Courtt o s ugges tt hatJ ur or “W ” “w i thhel d m at er i al i nf

or m at i on dur i ng voi rdi r e w hi ch w oul d have r es ul t ed i n herbei ng ch all en g ed ” a n d “the n relay ed that ex ac t d isqu ali fyin g info rm ati o n to the o ther m em b ers of the j ury dur i ng del i ber at i ons ” pur s uantt o T . K . Stanley, I

nc. v. Cas on , 614 So. 2d 942, 9 5 0 (M is s . 1 9 9 2 ). ¶7 2. M or e ov e r , t he O dom t esthas si nce b een ex pan ded t o incl ud e a fourt h pr ong r equi r i ng that“pr ej udi ce . . . i n s el ect i ng the j ury coul d r eas onabl y be i nfer r ed f r om the j ur or ’ s f ai l ur e t o r es pond. ” P a y to n v . S ta te , 897 So. 2d 921, 954 ( M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng Ch a se v. S ta te , 6 4 5 S o . 2 d 8 2 9 , 8 4 7 (M iss . 1 9 9 4 ); M y e rs v. S ta te , 565 So. 2d 554, 558 (M i s s . 1990) ; and O dom ) . A s s um i ng thatthe f i r s tthr ee e l ement s had bee n m et , M ar i ner h a s n o t s h o w n th a t it w a s p re ju d ic e d b y th e ju ro r’ s fa ilu re to re s p o n d . See B u c k le y, 772 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 6 5 (“ W h e th e r p re ju d ice c a n b e in fe rre d in th e ju ry s e le c tio n p ro c e ss d u e to [ j ur or ’ s ] s i l ence i s an i nqui ry thi s C our tm akes onl y aft er the O dom f act or s have be en ans w er ed i n the af

f i r m at i ve. ”) A ddi t i onal l y, M ar i nerw oul d notbe abl e t o s how prej udi ce w i th regard t o Juror “W ” beca use t he v erdi ctw as 10-2 for com pen sat ory dam ages. 5 ¶73. I n P ayton , thi s C our tf ound: T h is a lle g e d in fo rm a tio n c a m e fro m th e ju ro rs’ o w n k n o w led g e o f th e fa c ts and w i tnes s es . I ti n no w ay r el at es t o ext raneou s i nf or m at i on s uppl i ed f

r om out s i de the j ury r oom . T he onl y al l egat i ons bef or e the tr i al courtw er e that the ju ro rs th em selv es d iscu ssed m att ers o u tsi d e the ev iden ce at tri al. T h ere w a s n o e v id e n c e th a t so m e o n e o u tsid e th e tw e lv e ju ro rs d id so m e th in g to i nfl uen ce t heirdeli berat i on s.

### Gentry de fined ce nsus as: “Our patie nts and our r es ide nts .”Gentry f urther said t hat 6 

### “it relates to th em as peo ple, an d th ey are o ur b usin ess.” 40 I d. a t 9 5 4 . ¶74. In t he cas e sub j udi ce, the al l egat i ons pert ai n t o the j ur or ’ s ow n know l edge and not t o any extr aneous i nf

or m at i on f

r om s om eone o uts i de the tw el ve j ur or s . T hi s C our thas also h eld th at “[i ] n the a b sen ce o f a thres h o ld sh o w ing o f ex tern a l in fl u en ce s, an inq u iry i nt o the j ury ver di cti s notr equi r ed. ” I d. ( ci t i ng G ladney v. Clarks dale B eve r age Co. , 625 So. 2d 40 7, 4 19 ( M i s s . 1 99 3) ) . Cl e a r l y, a n i nq ui ry i nt o the j ury ve r di c ti s not re q u ire d . F o r th e se re a so n s, I w o u ld fin d th a t t h e tria l co u rt p ro p e rly d e n ied th e m o tio n to c o n ta c t ju ro rs . ¶7 5. W i t h r egar d t o the thi r d i s s ue , the maj or i ty f i nd s tha tthe d e po s i t i on t es t i m ony of tw o corpor at e of

f i cer s w as notpr obat i ve t o t he i ssues of duty, br eac h, caus at i on ori nj ury. T he maj or i ty f

ur therf i nds thatthe admi s s i on of thi s t es t i m ony prej udi ced M ar i nerand c o n s titu te d re v e rs ib le e rr o r. I d is a g re e . ¶7 6 . B o y d G e n try , se n io r v ice p re sid en t and tr ea su rer o f M arine r, test if ied, no t o n ly aboutcos tand ca s h, butal s o aboutcar e and c ens us . G entry s ai d: 6 T he f ourC s ar e r eal l y m eantto be a w ay of thi nki ng aboutour bus i nes s as a w hol e. So w hi l e my di r ectact i vi t i es m ay be t i ed t o cas h or c o st, in u s th in k in g a b o u t o u r b u s in e s s , th e se n io r m a n a g e m e n t tea m is extr em el y focused on care and cen sus. A nd w e r eal l y – I gues s w e don’ tof t en have conver s at i ons aboutthe one w i thouthavi ng conver sat i ons aboutthe other . I t ’ s al w ays ki nd of the four C s. ¶7 7 . R o y D u m as, reg ion al v ice p re sid e n t o f o p era ti o n s for the so u th d istri ct o f M arine r, t es t i f i ed thathe w as the di r ects upervi s orof the admi ni s t rat ors of

var i ous f

aci l i t i es under

### 41

the M ar i nerum br el l a. D um as furtherof f er ed t es t i m ony as t o the f ourC s and as t o the var i ous m on t hly r eport s he r ece i ved. T hes e r eport s i ncl uded, butw er e notl i m i t ed t o, r eport s det ai l i ng the numberof f al l s , i nj ur i es , w hethers t af f w as f ol l ow i ng m edi cal p ro to c o l, h o w m a n y re s id e n ts h a d lo s t w e ig h t, a n d th e to ta l n u m b e r o f p re s s u re s o re s . ¶7 8. T he maj or i ty s t a t e s , “ Pl a i nt i f f’ s c ou ns e l r e l i e d on thi s t e s t i mony a nd the t es t i m ony of M ar i ner ’ s s eni orvi ce pr es i dentand tr eas ur ert o por tr ay M ar i neras a company f ocus ed o n fin a n c ial s u c c e ss ra th e r th a n c o m p e te n t ca re .” T h e m a jo rity is a p p a re n tly re fe rrin g to comm ent s m ade dur i ng the openi ng st at em entand cl os i ng ar gum ent , w hi ch ar e not evi dence . ¶79. T he maj or i t y fi nd s t hat “t he t est i m on y w as no tp robat i ve t o the i s s ues of duty, br eac h, caus at i on, ori nj ury. ” The m aj or i ty’ s f i ndi ng m eans t hat t es t i m ony f r om the vi ce pr es i dentof

oper at i ons aboutthe ca r e and treat m entof pat i ent s w oul d be dee m ed irre lev a n t in a trial a b o u t th e c a re a n d tre a tm e n t o f a p a tien t. T h e m a jo ri ty ’s f in d in g is cl ear l y err oneous . T her ef or e, I w oul d f

i nd thatthe evi dence w as pr oper l y i ntr oduced. ¶ 8 0 . In iss u e V (B ), th e m a jo rity fin d s th a t th e trial c o u rt c o m m itte d r e v e rs ib le e rro r in noti ns truct i ng the j ury t o c ons i derthe s epar at e conductof e ach def

endant . I di sagree . M ar i nert a ke s i s s ue wi th the d e ni a l o f a s i ng l e i ns truc t i on . H oweve r , the ot her in s tru c tio n s , ta k e n a s a w h o le , fa ir ly p r e s e n t th e a p p lic a b le la w . See W hitten v. Cox , 799 S o . 2 d 1 , 1 6 (M iss . 2 0 0 0 ). T h e re fo re , I w o u ld fin d th a t th is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. ¶ 8 1 . A c c o rd in g ly , fo r th e re a so n s s tate d h e re in , I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. DI AZ , P . J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.