Opinion ID: 1744914
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the circuit court erred in granting EM Care's motion for directed verdict.

Text: ¶ 28. In reviewing the circuit court's grant of EM Care's motion for directed verdict, this Court considers whether the evidence, as applied to the elements of a party's case, is either so indisputable, or so deficient, that the necessity of a trier of fact has been obviated. Spotlite Skating Rink, Inc. v. Barnes, 988 So.2d 364, 368 (Miss.2008) (quoting White v. Stewman, 932 So.2d 27, 32 (Miss.2006)). ¶ 29. EM Care's motion for directed verdict maintained that no evidence had been introduced demonstrating the existence of an employment relationship between EM Care and Dr. Pruett. The circuit court granted EM Care's motion because the record lacked any mention of EM Care. On appeal, the Hartels claim, over EM Care's vigorous denial, that EM Care admitted in its pleadings that it was Dr. Pruett's employer and, therefore, could be held vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior if Dr. Pruett was deemed negligent in treating Betty. ¶ 30. In its answer to Biloxi Regional's cross-claim, EM Care merely admitted that it had a duty of indemnification to Biloxi Regional for the negligence of Dr. Pruett. In short, EM Care did not admit that Dr. Pruett was its employee. In Biloxi Regional's motion for separate trial, later joined by EM Care, it is asserted that EM Care contracted with [Biloxi Regional] to furnish physicians to staff the Emergency Department at the hospital. Again, this statement does not constitute an admission by EM Care that it employed Dr. Pruett. ¶ 31. Regardless, no evidence was presented at trial linking EM Care to Dr. Pruett. Absent proof of an employment relationship, the evidence was either so indisputable, or so deficient, that the necessity of a trier of fact [was] obviated, id., and the circuit court had no alternative but to grant EM Care's motion for directed verdict. See Vines v. Windham, 606 So.2d 128, 131 (Miss.1992) ([a] trial court should submit an issue to the jury only if the evidence creates a question of fact concerning which reasonable jurors could disagree.) (citations omitted). Accordingly, this Court finds that this issue is without merit. [13]