Opinion ID: 1109815
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: was mpc entitled to a judgment based on the first verdict of the jury?

Text: MPC also argues that the trial court was in error because it did not accept the first verdict of the jury and enter judgment accordingly, but gave the jury an additional instruction, received the second verdict, and entered judgment based on the second verdict. The jury returned the following verdict: We, the jury, find for the plaintiff, Robert L. Jones, and assess damages in the sum of $-0- actual damages and $15,000.00 punitive damages, against Mississippi Power Company. Over the objection of MPC the judge granted an additional instruction as follows: This court instructs the jury that before you can find that plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages you must find that plaintiff would be entitled to some actual damages. Punitive damages may only be awarded in addition to actual damages. The instruction given by the trial court was proper because punitive damages predicated on actual damages are not recoverable if no actual damages are allowed. Allen v. Ritter, 235 So.2d 253 (Miss. 1970); McCain v. Cochran, 153 Miss. 237, 120 So. 823 (1929). Two instructions pertaining to damages were granted but neither instruction expressly covers the point of law included in the instruction given by the court on its own initiative. The jury was returned to the jury room for further deliberation after which it returned the following verdict: We the jury, find for the plaintiff, Robert L. Jones, and assess damages in the sum of $5,000.00 actual damages, and $15,000.00 punitive damages, against the Mississippi Power Company. Section 11-7-161 Mississippi Code Annotated (1972) provides: If the verdict is not responsive to the issue submitted to the jury, the court shall call their attention thereto and send them back for further deliberation. In Saucier v. Walker, 203 So.2d 299 (Miss. 1967) the jury returned a verdict in a suit based on the negligence of several joint tort-feasors as follows: WE, the JURY, find for the PLAINTIFF against the following DEFENDANTS: B.F. WALKER & B.F. WALKER, INC. $5,000.00 RAYMOND G. BRAKEFIELD $5,000.00 CHARLES WADE PHILLIPS $5,000.00 (203 So.2d at 302) We held in Saucier that the trial judge should have, on his own motion, ordered the jury to return and bring in a verdict in the proper form. In Saucier, we stated: The form of the verdict in this case is ambiguous, confusing and improper, and the attorney for the appellant should have requested that the jury be returned to the jury room to reword their verdict and to bring in a verdict in the proper form. In the absence of a request from the appellant's attorney that this be done, the trial judge on his own motion, should have ordered the jury to return to the jury room to reform and reword their verdict and to bring in a verdict in proper form. In fact this Court placed this responsibility and duty squarely on the shoulders of the trial judge when it said in Universal C.I.T. Credit Corp. v. Turner, supra, The trial court was under the duty to see that loss of time and the expense of the trial should not be nullified by the failure of the jury to put their verdict in proper form. 56 So.2d [800] at 803. (203 So.2d at 303). In Newell v. State, 308 So.2d 71 (Miss. 1975) we held that a trial judge may initiate and give appropriate written instructions in addition to those requested by the litigants. In Newell v. State, 308 So.2d 68 (Miss. 1975) we also held that the court could initiate and give appropriate written instructions to a jury after it had retired to consider its verdict in response to a question from the jury. The first verdict rendered by the jury found for the plaintiff but did not assess any amount for actual damages. This was a finding that MPC was negligent. When the jury assessed punitive damages in its first verdict, this was a finding that MPC was guilty of negligence that indicated a reckless or wanton disregard for the safety of Jones. Under our rule that punitive damages may not be awarded unless actual damages are awarded, the first verdict was ambiguous, confusing and improper. After the trial judge supplied the deficiency in the original instructions, the jury retired to consider its verdict further, and returned a verdict in the proper form. We hold: (1) MPC was not entitled to a judgment in its favor on the verdict of the jury, and (2) it was not error for the trial court to initiate and give the additional instruction under the facts of this case.