Court Opinion

ID: 9679479
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:53:53.723673+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:13.944791
License: Public Domain

Gillespie, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur with the majority on the question of liability as to compensatory and punitive damages. "With due deference, I am of the opinion that the verdict is excessive.
The verdict in this case was for $90,000, from which the jury deducted $5,000 paid by Sayle, and assessed the remaining $85,000 against the appellant. The proof showed that the deceased was a girl fourteen years of age, and was a model child of unusually fine traits. She suffered horribly during approximately 75 hours of consciousness, and lived about 99 hours after the injury. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the ease, a large verdict was justified, especially in view of the fact that punitive damages were properly allowable.
T recognize the rule that the amount of punitive or exemplary damages is solely within the discretion of the jury and this Court should not interfere therewith unless for exceptional causes. Yazoo R. R. v. Williams, 87 Miss. 344, 39 So. 489. However, in the cases of Alabama R. R. Co. v. Kelly, 126 Miss. 276, 88 So. 707, and Teche Lines, Inc. v. Pope, 175 Miss. 393, 166 So. 539, this Court gave recognition to the rule that in extraordinary cases it should exercise a supervisory power over verdicts that include punitive damages.
The amount of the verdict in this case is without precedent in any American jurisdiction for the death of a child, insofar as it appears from the excellent briefs filed by both sides. Iñ my opinion, this verdict far exceeds the rational total of compensatory and punitive damages. I believe that to a reasonable and objective mind it must be said that the verdict was the result of sympathy, bias, or prejudice. The entire atmosphere of this case was *633calculated in all of its aspects to play heavily upon the emotions of the jury.
I am apprehensive that the action of the majority in upholding this verdict, aside from the matter of justice to the particular defendant, will justifiably alarm the citizens of our state and will have a disturbing effect on its commercial and industrial development, which is so vital to the welfare of all of the people. Such observation would not be valid unless based on the belief that the damages far exceed what would justly compensate the plaintiffs and punish the defendant. I think a remittitur should have been ordered.
McGehee, G. J., and Boberds and Ethridge, JJ., concur in this opinion.