Case Name: Elbert TURNER v. James T. PICKENS
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1998-05-14
Citations: 711 So. 2d 891
Docket Number: No. 96-CA-00887-SCT
Parties: Elbert TURNER v. James T. PICKENS.
Judges: Before SULLIVAN, P.J., and BANKS and MILLS, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 711
Pages: 891–894

Head Matter:
Elbert TURNER v. James T. PICKENS.
No. 96-CA-00887-SCT.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
May 14, 1998.
Marshall E. Sanders, Vicksburg, for Appellant.
Arthur S. Johnston, III, Silas W. Mediaren, Daniel Coker Horton & Bell, Jackson, for Appellee.
Before SULLIVAN, P.J., and BANKS and MILLS, JJ.

Opinion:
MILLS, Justice, for the Court:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
¶ 1. On December 27, 1985, Elbert Turner was involved in an automobile accident. As a result of this accident, Turner filed a civil action against Wells Fargo Armored Service Corporation, Herman Ludvigsen, Pickens Brothers Lumber Company, Inc., and James Pickens. At trial a directed verdict was entered in favor of Pickens Brothers. The jury returned a verdict of $3, 461,082 against Wells Fargo, Ludvigsen, and Pickens. The trial court reduced the verdict to $3,416,090.
¶ 2. The defendants appealed and in 1989 this Court reversed and remanded for a new trial as to liability and damages against Pick-ens and affirmed as to the liability against Wells Fargo and Ludvigsen. Wells Fargo Armored Serv. Corp. v. Turner, 543 So.2d 154 (Miss.1989). This Court also vacated and remitted the judgment from $3,416,090 to $850,000. Turner, 543 So.2d at 159-60. Wells Fargo paid the remittitur, which Turner accepted, and a satisfaction of the judgment was entered in the Circuit Court of Claiborne County, Mississippi.
¶3. Turner now claims that because this Court reversed and remanded for a new trial as to Pickens, he can sue Pickens for the rest of his damages. Pickens asserts that Turner has already received full satisfaction of his claim. The trial court held that Turner concluded the case when he accepted the remit-titur, and thus, should not be able to bring suit against Pickens. Aggrieved, Turner brings this appeal.
ISSUES
I. WHETHER THIS APPEAL SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION BECAUSE TURNER FAILED TO FOLLOW MISSISSIPPI RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, RULE 4(g)?
¶4. We do not discuss the jurisdictional issue presented on this appeal since this issue has been previously addressed by order of this Court denying the Appellee's Motion to Dismiss.
II. WHETHER TURNER'S ACCEPTANCE OF THE REMITTITUR ACTED AS A COMPLETE AND FINAL SATISFACTION AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS FOR THE DAMAGES RESULTING FROM HIS 1985 AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT?
¶ 5. Turner asserts -that the $850,000 he received in damages does not constitute all of the damages to which he is entitled. He claims that when this Court ordered the remittitur, we never stated that an amount over $850,000 would be excessive. Thus, he argues that he should now be able to sue Pickens and if a new jury finds his damages to be over $850,000, then Pickens should be liable for the difference.
¶ 6. Turner is correct that this Court did not state that $850,000 was the maximum amount that could be awarded in damages in this ease. Wells Fargo Armored Serv. Corp. v. Turner, 543 So.2d 154 (Miss.1989). What this Court did was give Turner a choice: he could have a new trial to determine damages against Wells Fargo and to determine both liability and damages of Pickens; or he could accept the remittitur. Any time this Court finds that damages are excessive and enters a remittitur, the plaintiff always has the option of accepting the remittitur or having the case remanded for a new trial on damages. Odom v. Roberts, 606 So.2d 114, 120 (Miss.1992). In the ease sub judiee, Turner accepted the remittitur. "When he did so he received full satisfaction of his claim.
¶ 7. We have previously held that a plaintiff is only entitled to one satisfaction. Medley v. Webb, 288 So.2d 846, 848 (Miss.1974). He cannot recover the full amount due to him and still sue another joint tortfea-sor because he thinks the damages awarded to him were inadequate. Medley, 288 So.2d at 848. Turner argues that the reasoning in Medley does not apply to the present case because in Medley the plaintiff received the full amount of damages awarded by the jury, and in the case sub judiee, the plaintiff did not receive the full amount awarded by the jury, receiving the amount of the remittitur instead. Turner's reasoning is misguided. He fails to realize that when he accepted the remittitur he received full satisfaction of his claim and he cannot now pursue Pickens for more damages. The rule of law concerning the effect of accepting a remitted judgment is concisely stated in 74 Am.Jur.2d Torts § 85, which states:
A partial payment of a judgment against one joint tortfeasor is not a satisfaction which will prevent the maintenance of an action against another. But where the injured party accepts the amount of a judgment as reduced by remittitur, such payment amounts to a full satisfaction and operates to discharge the other tort-feasors otherwise jointly liable. 74 Am. Jur.2d Torts § 85 (1974)(emphasis added).
¶8. We hereby adopt this rule. Accordingly, we hold that Turner extinguished the liability of all of the joint tortfeasors when he accepted the remittitur. Therefore, Pickens cannot be found liable, and Turner's cause of action against Pickens should be dismissed.
CONCLUSION
¶ 9. This Court denies Turner's claim. Turner accepted the remittitur which amounted to full satisfaction of his claim. Thus, he is now barred from bringing suit against Pickens.
¶ 10. AFFIRMED.
PRATHER, C.J., SULLIVAN and PITTMAN, P.JJ., and BANKS, SMITH and WALLER, JJ., concur.
McRAE, J., dissents with separate written opinion joined by JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., J.