Opinion ID: 1924529
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mississippi Federal District Court Decisions.

Text: ¶ 75. In Buckhalter v. Burlington N.R.R., Civ. A. No. EC90-139-D-D, 1992 WL 236676,  1 (N.D.Miss. March 23, 1992), a Mississippi federal district court, applying state law, concluded that hedonic damages were not available in wrongful death actions, relying on this Court's decisions in McGowan and Shaffer as follows: hedonic damages or damages for loss of the enjoyment of life are not recoverable under Mississippi's wrongful death statute. Even though the statute states that the jury should be allowed to consider damages of every kind to the decedent and all damages of every kind to any and all parties interested in the suit, the Mississippi Supreme Court has limited the scope of such damages to four general areas: (1) the present net cash value of the life expectancy of the deceased, (2) the loss of the companionship and society of the decedent, (3) the pain and suffering of the decedent between the time of injury and death, and (4) punitive damages. McGowan v. Estate of Wright, 524 So.2d 308, 311 (Miss.1988) (citations omitted). The court finds that plaintiff's reliance upon Justice Robertson's concurring opinion in Jones v. Shaffer, 573 So.2d 740 (Miss.1990) (Robertson, J., concurring), in which he argues that a plaintiff should be allowed to recover hedonic damages in a wrongful death action, is not the opinion of the majority of the justices on the court. Erie-bound to follow current Mississippi law, the court finds that all of the testimony relating to loss of enjoyment of life from Stan Smith, plaintiff's proposed expert on hedonic damages, must be excluded. ¶ 76. In Moore v. The Kroger Co., 800 F.Supp. 429, 435 (N.D.Miss.1992), the same federal district court discussed its decision in Buckhalter, and went on to say: McGowan is inapplicable here because this is not a wrongful death case. Nevertheless, concerns about double damage awards attend both types of cases. As has been noted, a plaintiff in a personal injury action may recover for past, present and future physical pain and suffering as well as resulting mental anguish where proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Moore may also recover for the duration of the illness and the effect it will have on his health, physical ability, age and earning power. Miss. Model Jury Instr. 20.14. In this court's opinion, these damages are highly similar to, if not synonymous with, damages for the loss of enjoyment of life. To allow both forms of damages would encourage duplicate awards and juror confusion. (emphasis added).