Opinion ID: 1631892
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: creatio ex nihilo

Text: ¶ 20. Although this is the second time this Court has ruled in this case, I am constrained to dissent here and to plead that the error of Richardson I should be overturned. Richardson I found that fact questions precluded a summary judgment on a personal injury claim. However, where we must part ways with Richardson I is that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover those damages, or was any other plaintiff or putative plaintiff then in existence entitled to recover those damages, for the decedent's personal injury claims preceding her death. Stated otherwise, the plaintiff in Richardson I sought damages for another's personal injury claim, which exclusively would belong to the putative estate of Vivian Wheeless, which was nonexistent at the time Richardson I was filed. Therein lies the flaw with the ruling in Richardson I and in the case sub judice. Linda Richardson, neither as an individual nor as a wrongful death beneficiary, possessed the right to recover damages for her mother's pain and suffering. ¶ 21. As this Court found in Richardson I, there was a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether Wheeless suffered more physically and incurred more expenses from the failure of the nursing staff as documented by Wheeless's expert. Nonetheless, those claims were exclusive to the estate, had an estate been established. The named plaintiff(s) were not entitled to those damages; and therefore, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment. When this Court found in Richardson I that the original complaint delineated two specific cause of actions which were sufficient under our system of notice pleadings, it was partially correct. But the Court erred, in my humble opinion, when it held that Richardson demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact requiring a trial on her separate cause of action for Wheeless's pain and suffering. That ruling cited neither legal precedent, nor common law, nor case law, nor statutory law, and finally no rule to overcome the requirement that a plaintiff must be entitled to the damages sought to have a valid civil action. The right to recover damages belonged exclusively to the estate, had one been established, which it had not. ¶ 22. The learned trial judge, in coping with this phantom claim, has described it as an ethereal survival claim. In its December 16, 2002, order, the trial court wrote: Though the Mississippi Supreme Court divined a survival claim in the pleadings, (which managed to lay hidden even to the drafter of those pleadings), there still did not exist a party plaintiff to collect those damages. (Emphasis added). The plaintiff acknowledged as much, when she argued in the trial court that the (trial) court should have recognized her error in not opening an estate on Wheeless and bringing the suit as Administrator for the Estate when she originally filed suit back in 1998 and ordered her to do so.  (Emphasis added). No student of the law can seriously question that a party must be in existence before it can bring a civil action. (M.R.C.P.2). M.R.C.P. 8 requires that a pleading which sets forth a claim for relief shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (2) a demand for judgment for the relief to which he deems himself entitled. The defendant properly challenged the propriety of such claim by Linda Richardson. ¶ 23. The trial court further noted in its order that in Richardson I this Court created a new species of plaintiff,  the notice plaintiff, which the majority disputes. I must agree with the learned trial judge. This Court's finding that Linda Richardson, either individually or as a wrongful death beneficiary, possessed a cause of action to recover damages for pain and suffering of her deceased mother can best be described as creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing). ¶ 24. On July 22, 2002, the trial court granted defendant's second motion to dismiss finding that even if a jury were to find that indeed Wheeless had incurred pain and suffering, there existed no plaintiff who could recover the damages citing Miss.Code Ann. § 91-7-233 (Rev.2004). A survival action could only be brought by the administrator of the estate. It was only after the July 2002 ruling that Richardson elected to open an estate. Then on August 16, 2002, without seeking leave of the Court, Linda Richardson filed an amended complaint, even though her case had already been dismissed by summary judgment. ¶ 25. The estate should have been opened in the beginning to pursue the survival action, which brings us to the second issue. Since no plaintiff entitled to seek damages existed when the statute of limitations expired, the statute clearly ran as to any claims for pain and suffering by the estate filed more than two years after the alleged tort. To find otherwise would permit a putative plaintiff to wait for any number of years, then open an estate, file suit, and cite the majority opinion as authority for the proposition that the statute only runs two years from the date the estate comes into existence, as opposed to from an alleged wrongful act. This would be a preposterous result and should not be allowed in this case. ¶ 26. Unfortunately, my colleagues' failure to accept that Richardson neither individually, nor as a wrongful death beneficiary-possessed no separate cause of action in Richardson I for her mother's pain and suffering, as the claim belonged only to the putative estate, has confused our body of law in this area. ¶ 27. For these reasons, I would overrule Richardson I, reverse the circuit court's denial of summary judgment on the survival claim, and render judgment for Wesley finally dismissing that claim with prejudice.