Opinion ID: 860004
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: ¶5. Morrison marketed two types of products to poultry farmers -- water filters and magnets. The water filters were manufactured by Eco Resources, and the magnets were distributed by a company operating under the name of Magnetic Marketing Group. Morrison's relationship with each company was not formal; he simply attended meetings sponsored by the companies and qualified to sell their products. The water filters were intended to remove chlorine, lead and other contaminants from water piped into poultry houses. Different magnets were marketed for a number of purposes, including the clean and efficient use of water and of fuel in the operation of chicken houses. ¶6. In April of 1990, Means purchased a water filter from Morrison. The two agreed Means would be allowed to purchase the water filter on a conditional basis: he made a $500 down payment on the purchase price, was allowed several months to evaluate the filter's performance, and then had the option to either pay the balance due or return the filter in exchange for a complete refund. Means used the water filter for several months without complaint; however, as the chickens grew, so as to require more drinking water, and as the season turned to summer, so as to require cooling by means of evaporative foggers, Means complained that the filter unacceptably restricted the water pressure required for the chicken houses. ¶7. All efforts made to remedy the problem ultimately proved unsatisfactory to Means. At trial, Means testified that by mid-summer 1990 he first requested a refund of his $500 down payment. In contrast, Morrison testified that after the modifications in April of 1990, Means voiced no more complaints regarding the water filter until shortly before the filing of the underlying lawsuit. ¶8. In the early Spring of 1990 (contemporaneous with installation of the water filter), Morrison first provided magnets to Means for use on one fuel line to the heater in a chicken house. The magnets were provided on a trial basis in order to allow Means to evaluate their effectiveness. The magnets were placed on the fuel line for the purpose of increasing the efficiency with which the chicken house was heated. Means testified that, based upon his records as to the historical cost of heating the chicken house, the magnets worked. Means never paid any money for this group of magnets. At the time of trial, they were still installed in his chicken house. ¶9. In January of 1991(approximately the time heating poultry houses again gained significance) Means contacted Morrison in regards to purchasing magnets for the fuel lines in the remainder of his chicken houses. Morrison testified at trial that he had ceased selling water filters and magnets altogether. He further testified that he agreed to arrange for the purchase of additional magnets through the company he previously represented as an accommodation to Means. In return, he was to receive $100 from Means for his costs and labors. Morrison testified that Means knew Morrison was no longer a distributor for the magnet company. Means, however, testified that he had no knowledge that Morrison was not a representative of the magnet company until the time of trial. Regardless, the testimony of both parties established that Morrison wrote a check to Means in the amount of the purchase price of the magnets plus $100. Morrison in turn purchased money orders for the amount of the purchase price made payable to the magnet company. ¶10. The magnets actually received by Means differed from those ordered through Morrison. The magnets Morrison installed on the fuel line in the Spring of 1990 were identified under the product codes M2 and FE1. The 21 magnets Means later purchased were Model FC Petro-Plus, a model with which Morrison had no familiarity. Means dealt directly with the manufacturer, and unbeknownst to Morrison, agreed to the substitution of the FC-Petro Plus magnets in light of the company's inability to supply the magnets actually ordered. It was not until sometime later that Morrison first learned from Means that Means had accepted magnets different from those previously provided on a trial basis. Dissatisfied with the 21 FC Petro-Plus magnets, Means demanded a further refund from Morrison. ¶11. In his suit Means demanded a refund not only of the $956.80 (including Morrison's $100 fee) paid for the 21 magnets, but also the $500 down payment on the water filter. Morrison refused to refund the $856.80 paid to Magnetic Marketing Group. He was willing to refund the $100 Means paid for Morrison's effort and expense. And he was willing to refund the $500 down payment on the water filter. However, from this total of $600 he deducted $340 -- his cost for the magnets Means admitted were provided on a trial basis, admitted worked, and admitted he never paid for. Morrison executed and mailed a check in the amount of $260 to Means. Means never cashed the check. I. WAS THERE EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT AN AWARD OF DAMAGES FOR MENTAL ANGUISH. ¶12. Mental anguish(1) is a nebulous concept (yet, all of us have suffered such anguish) and requires substantial proof for recovery. The standard required for mental anguish is elusive. However, the Restatement (Second) of Torts likens it to that required for entitlement to an award of punitive damages. It requires conduct so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46. ¶13. This Court has held that recovery for mental anguish can be allowable even when there is no presence of a physical injury. Where there is something about the defendant's conduct which evokes outrage or revulsion, done intentionally - or even unintentionally yet the results being reasonably foreseeable - Courts can in certain circumstances comfortably assess damages for mental and emotional stress, even though there has been no physical injury. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Devers, 405 So. 2d 898, 902 (Miss. 1981). Stated another way, the standard is whether the defendant's behavior is malicious, intentional, willful, wanton, grossly careless, indifferent or reckless. Leaf River Forest Products, Inc. v. Ferguson, 662 So. 2d 648, 659 (Miss. 1995). If there is outrageous conduct, no injury is required for recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress or mental anguish. Id. If the case of ordinary garden variety negligence, the plaintiff must prove some sort of injury, whether it be physical or mental. See Wirtz v. Switzer, 586 So. 2d 775, 784 (Miss. 1991); and Devers, 405 So. 2d at 902. If the conduct is not malicious, intentional or outrageous, there must be some sort of demonstrative harm, and said harm must have been reasonably foreseeable to the defendant. Strickland v. Rossini, 589 So. 2d 1268, 1275 (Miss. 1991). ¶14. The first aspect we must consider is what type of conduct occurred between Morrison and Means. Morrison argues that he conducted himself like an honest farmer who expects a man's handshake to be every bit as significant as his signature at the bottom of a contract. It is Morrison's argument that he allowed Means to use his products on a trial basis, he afforded Means generous payment terms, and he assisted Means in securing additional magnets at Means' request. ¶15. Morrison contends that Means' distress does not rise to the level of anxiety or anguish required to support an award for emotional distress. Means asserts that Morrison's injurious conduct was the refusal to honor a guaranteed refund. It was this alleged refusal that Means claims caused him the stress and anxiety of trying to determine how he could make ends meet without the refund. As a young farmer, Means states that the refund (he claims to be $1,456.80) was a significant part of his family's income. This loss, Means asserts, caused him emotional strain and many sleepless nights. ¶16. There is no other evidence in this case to support a claim for mental anguish. The only evidence of Morrison's conduct was that he did not refund the entire $1,456.80 requested by Means. This is not willful, wanton, grossly careless behavior. Moreover, the evidence tends to support Morrison's explanation of the amount he offered Means as a refund. If anything, the evidence shows that Morrison tried to accommodate Means. Morrison testified at trial that he agreed to arrange for the purchase of additional magnets through the company he previously represented as an accommodation to Means. Thereafter, Means dealt directly with the manufacturer of the magnets. ¶17. The magnets actually received by Means differed from those ordered through Morrison. The magnets Morrison installed on the fuel line in the Spring of 1990 were identified under the product codes M2 and FE1. The 21 magnets Means purchased were Model FC Petro-Plus, a model with which Morrison had no familiarity. Means dealt directly with the manufacturer, and unbeknownst to Morrison, agreed to the substitution of the FC-Petro Plus magnets in light of the company's inability to supply the magnets actually ordered. It was not until sometime later that Morrison first learned from Means that Means had accepted magnets different from those previously provided on a trial basis. Dissatisfied with the 21 FC Petro-Plus magnets, Means demanded a further refund from Morrison, not the manufacturer he had been dealing with. Morrison's conduct simply does not rise to the level of malicious, intentional, willful, wanton, grossly careless, indifferent, or reckless. Leaf River, 662 So. 2d at 659. ¶18. Even if this Court were to find Morrison's conduct to be of such a nature to meet the standard set by our precedent, there is not enough evidence presented to support the claim of mental anguish as a result of the conduct due to a lack of an injury. Means testified that he lost some sleep. He stated that, [i]t has affected me emotionally in that I have not been able to sleep many nights because I feel like I've been done wrong. I've been cheated out of money that I need to help support my family. These two sentences out of the entire transcript offered in support of this claim are hardly enough evidence to support a verdict that amounts to $3543.20 in damages for mental anguish. ¶19. In Strickland v. Rossini, 589 So. 2d 1268 (Miss. 1991), we held that evidence that the plaintiff was very depressed . . . [and] very upset over all this and emotional. . . . [and] not able to sleep, was insufficient to sustain a damages for mental anguish. Strickland, 589 So. 2d at 1275-76 (emphasis added). The testimony towards mental anguish in the Strickland case was the equivalent, if not more convincing, to that in the case sub judice. However, we did not find it adequate enough to support the award of damages for mental anguish, nor can we now hold that the evidence in the case at hand supports an award of damages for mental anguish. The jury below was erroneous in its award of damages. ¶20. Under our prevailing case law, there is no evidence of mental anguish in this case. Morrison's conduct did not reach the level of outrageous conduct this Court has required for mental anguish. Moreover, Means did not prove any evidence of an injury resulting from Morrison's conduct. Thus, the jury verdict of $5,000 must be reversed and the case remanded. ¶21. REVERSED AND REMANDED. LEE, C.J., PRATHER AND SULLIVAN, P.JJ., BANKS, ROBERTS, SMITH, AND MILLS, JJ., CONCUR. McRAE, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.