Opinion ID: 1924529
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: (Cross-appeal) Whether the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to permit Hailey to submit the issue of punitive damages to the jury.

Text: ¶ 50. In South Cent. Bell v. Epps, 509 So.2d 886, 892 (Miss.1987), this Court held that there is no right to an award of punitive damages and such damages are to be awarded only in extreme cases. We held that the trial court judge should initially determine whether to submit punitive damages to the jury, and in making this determination, the trial court must review all of the evidence before submitting the issue of punitive damages to the jury. Id. at 893. A judge's decision not to send punitive damages to the jury will only be reversed upon a finding of an abuse of discretion. Hurst v. Southwest Miss. Legal Servs. Corp., 708 So.2d 1347, 1351 (Miss.1998). ¶ 51. This Court has long recognized the utilization of punitive damages to punish the wrongdoer and to deter others from wanton or malicious conduct so that the public may be properly protected. C & C Trucking Co. v. Smith, 612 So.2d 1092, 1105-06 (Miss.1992); Snowden v. Osborne, 269 So.2d 858, 860 (Miss.1972), overruled on other grounds, Fowler Butane Gas Co. v. Varner, 244 Miss. 130, 141 So.2d 226 (1962). Also, [p]unitive damages may be recovered not only for willful and intentional wrong, but for such gross and reckless negligence as is, in the eyes of the law, equivalent to willful wrong. Fowler Butane, 141 So.2d at 233-34; Dame v. Estes, 233 Miss. 315, 101 So.2d 644 (1958); Bush v. Watkins, 224 Miss. 238, 80 So.2d 19 (1955). ¶ 52. Hailey argues that CMF's conduct caused Hailey's death. CMF's failure to: (1) train Frazier in the proper rules of the road under the conditions as they existed at the time of the accident, (2) maintain drivers' logs and maintenance logs of its equipment as required by federal law, (3) require its driver and vehicle inspectors to be conversant in the state and federal regulations which govern the maintenance and operation of tractor-trailer, (4) preserve the drivers' logs and vehicle maintenance logs for inspection after the accident, (5) maintain red reflex reflectors as required by federal law to warn approaching motorists that the trailer was obstructing their path of travel, (6) have lights visible by welding winches, and (7) properly license the defendant's trailer for a period of more than four years, set up a pattern of conduct by CMF which provides facts and circumstances warranting submission to the jury of the issue of punitive damages as provided by Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (Supp.2001). Hailey claims that based upon the foregoing facts, there was clear and convincing proof of CMF's statutory violation(s), and the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to grant a punitive damage instruction. ¶ 53. CMF agrees with Hailey that § 11-1-65 provides, in pertinent part, that punitive damages may be awarded for gross negligence which evidences a willful, wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of others ... Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-65(1)(a). However, CMF argues that the cases cited by Hailey demonstrate that the evidence in this case did not support the imposition of such damages. ¶ 54. The rule is that simple negligence is not of itself evidence sufficient to support punitive damages, but accompanying facts and circumstances may be used to show that that portion of defendant's conduct which constituted the proximate cause of the accident was willful and wanton or grossly negligent. Pelican Trucking Co. v. Rossetti, 251 Miss. 37, 167 So.2d 924, 926 (1964) (citations omitted). ¶ 55. The punitive damages statute requires a relation between the wrongful act and the harm that resulted. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-65. For instance, among the factors to be considered in the award of punitive damages is the impact of the defendant's conduct on the plaintiff. Id. § 11-1-65(e). In addition, once the punitive damage verdict has been awarded, the trial court is required to determine [w]hether there is a reasonable relationship between the punitive damage award and the harm likely to have resulted from the defendant's conduct as well as the harm that actually occurred. Id. § 11-1-65(f)(ii)(1) (emphasis added). Thus, the statute is clear that there must be some relation between the wrongful act and the harm that resulted. ¶ 56. In Pelican Trucking, we reviewed the award of compensatory and punitive damages in a tractor trailer accident case. The Court concluded that the accident was caused by the truck driver's simple negligence and that there was no evidence of any willful and intentional wrong or gross negligence on the part of the driver. 167 So.2d at 926. ¶ 57. Here, as in Pelican Trucking, the primary cause of the accident was Frazier's negligence. There is no nexus between the alleged gross negligence of CMF and the accident. ¶ 58. To illustrate this point, CMF states that Hailey harps on insignificant facts, such as the trailer at issue having an expired license plate; the trailer being 18 years old and in a state of infrequent use; the missing log book; and Frazier's painted over reflectors. It is to suggest that an expired license or a missing log book caused or contributed to this accident. There was no evidence that the age and condition of the trailer had anything to do with this accident. Likewise, Hailey contends that Frazier's difficulty with the English language prevented him from being conversant with the Code of Federal Regulations. This does not reach any level of gross negligence. The record does indicate Frazier was properly trained and supervised, and duly licensed. Since there was no evidence to support a punitive damage instruction, the trial court is affirmed on this issue.