Opinion ID: 1796877
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: construction of the mississippi wrongful death statute by the chancery court of warren county, mississippi, deprives the estate of samuel otto jones, jr. of recovering all damages of every kind.

Text: Jones' estate argues that the chancellor's ruling effectively negates the Estate's chances of recovery for damages because Samuel Howell Clinton, the child Jones gave up for adoption, will not be able to prove damages for the loss of love, society, companionship, loss of household services, loss of gifts, gratuities, remembrances, and support. Mississippi's wrongful death statute creates a cause of action unknown to the common law, and we have held that the statute must be strictly construed. Smith v. Garrett, 287 So.2d 258, 260 (Miss. 1973). The wrongful death statute creates a new and independent cause of action in favor of those named therein. Partyka v. Yazoo Dev. Corp., 376 So.2d 646, 650 (Miss. 1979) (citing Hasson Grocery Co. v. Cook, 196 Miss. 452, 17 So.2d 791 (1944)). From the facts of this case it certainly appears that Samuel Clinton Howell might have a difficult time establishing certain damages, as he was adopted in 1986 and the record is not clear whether he had any contact with Jones after 1986. Nevertheless, Howell can bring a wrongful death action and seek: (1) the present net cash value for Jones' life expectancy, (2) the loss of the companionship and society of the decedent, (3) damages for Jones' pain and suffering between the time of his injury and death, and (4) punitive damages. McGowan, 524 So.2d at 311. The Estate argues that this Court should reverse the chancellor's ruling so that the parties (his sisters) who can prove and recover the most in damages for Jones' death can bring the wrongful death action. Notwithstanding the Estate's argument, the wrongful death statute does not provide a mechanism to allow the courts to by-pass the statutory order of beneficiaries so that one statutory beneficiary, more removed from the deceased under the statute yet emotionally closer to the deceased, can bring the action over the proper statutory beneficiary. It is possible that at times the best relative to bring a wrongful death action, because of his closeness to the deceased, might not be the relative allowed by the statute to bring such an action. Nevertheless, the statute does not allow the courts to take this factor into consideration when determining the deceased's wrongful death beneficiary. Accordingly, we find no legal merit in this argument.