Opinion
Civil Action No. 4:99CV176-B-B
July 7, 2000
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This cause comes before the court upon the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. Upon due consideration of the parties' memoranda and exhibits, the court is ready to rule.
FACTS
The parties have both stated that the undisputed facts are as follows:
On July 20, 1999, while in the course and scope of his employment with FEE Transportation Services, Inc. (FEE), Terry Hunt was operating a tractor-trailer owned by FEE traveling westbound on Highway 82 in Sunflower County near Itta Bena, Mississippi. On that same day, the decedent, Ralph Miller, was operating a tractor, also traveling westbound on Highway 82 in Sunflower County near Itta Bena, Mississippi.
It is undisputed that the FEE truck operated by Terry Hunt collided with the rear of the farm tractor operated by Ralph Miller. The collision resulted in the death of Ralph Miller.See Plaintiffs' response to defendants' partial motion for summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages, pp. 1 — 2.; See defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, pp. 1 — 2. It is this factual scenario that gave rise to the instant action.
Subsequent to Ms. Miller's institution of this action, Mayle Claiborne, as natural mother of Destin Claiborne, intervened as a plaintiff in this cause. See Plaintiffs' response to defendants' partial motion for summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages, p. 2.; See defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, p. 2. Destin Claiborne is a wrongful death beneficiary of Ralph Miller. Id.
The defendants have now filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to the issue of recovery of punitive damages in this cause.
LAW
On a motion for summary judgment, the movant has the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 91 L.Ed.2d 265, 275 (1986) ("the burden on the moving party may be discharged by `showing' . . . that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case"). Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment "against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to a party's case and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322, 91 L.Ed.2d at 273. Before finding that no genuine issue of material fact exists, the court must first be satisfied that no reasonable trier of fact could find for the non-movant. Matsushita Elec. Indus. v. Zenith Radio Cor., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 89 L.Ed.2d 538, 552 (1986). Under Rule 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the burden shifts to the non-movant to "go beyond the pleadings and by . . . affidavits, or by the `depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file' designate `specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324, 91 L.Ed.2d at 274. That burden is not discharged by "mere allegations or denials." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). All legitimate factual inferences must be made in favor of the non-movant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 91 L.Ed.2d 202, 216 (1986). Summary judgment is only appropriate where the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).
The only issue before the court for determination of summary judgment is the issue of punitive damages. Mississippi's punitive damages statute provides, in relevant part:
§ 11-1-65. Punitive damages.
(1) In any action in which punitive damages are sought:
(a) Punitive damages may not be awarded if the claimant does not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant against whom punitive damages are sought acted with actual malice, gross negligence which evidences a willful, wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of others, or committed actual fraud.
Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (Supp. 1999). The Mississippi Supreme Court has concisely stated the basic principles of punitive damages jurisprudence as follows:
[A] plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages only if he has demonstrated a willful or malicious wrong or the gross, reckless disregard for the rights of others. Punitive damages are assessed as an example and warning to others and should be allowed only with caution and within narrow limits. `Punitive damages are assessed only in extreme cases.' Finally, and most importantly . . ., `punitive damages are recoverable where the defendant has done to the plaintiff such a wrong as to import insult, fraud, oppression or reckless disregard for the rights of the plaintiff.'
Duggins v. Guardianship of Washington ex rel. Huntley, 1994 Miss. LEXIS 131 (Miss. 1994) (dissenting opinion) (citations omitted). The Mississippi Supreme Court has further held that, "[p]unitive damages are to be assessed only in `extreme cases,' and since they are intended `as an example and warning to others, `they should be allowed only with caution and within narrow limits.'" Wallace v. Thornton, 672 So.2d 724, 728 (Miss. 1996); citing Beta Beta Chapter of Beta Theta Phi Fraternity v. May, 611 So.2d 889, 894 (Miss. 1992), originally quoting Consolidated American Life Insurance Co. v. Toche, 410 So.2d 1303, 1304-1305 (Miss. 1982); see also Snow Lake Shores Property Owners Corp. v. Smith, 610 So.2d 357, 362 (Miss. 1992); Boling v. A-1 Detective Patrol Service, Inc., 659 So.2d 586, 588-589 (Miss. 1995) (punitive damages not appropriate in cases of simple negligence). This being so, the court must decide whether the party requesting punitive damages has introduced evidence sufficient to warrant such an award. Lewis v. Hiatt, 683 So.2d 937, 942 (Miss. 1996). Such an analysis requires examination of the totality of the circumstances and of the defendant's total conduct to determine whether the circumstances are such that punitive damages should be imposed. Paracelsus Health Care Corp. v. Willard, 754 So.2d 437, 441 (Miss. 1999.
Under Mississippi law, gross negligence has been defined as a course of conduct which, under certain conditions, "discloses a reckless indifference to consequences without the exertion of any substantial effort to avoid them." Ezell v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., 761 F. Supp. 149, 152 (S.D.Miss. 1997) (quoting Dame v. Estes, 101 So.2d 644, 645 (Miss. 1958)). Reckless disregard for the rights of others has been defined, in terms of automobile law, as "[the] means the voluntary doing by motorist of an improper or wrongful act, or with knowledge of existing conditions, the voluntary refraining from doing a proper or prudent act when such act or failure to act evinces an entire abandonment of any care, and heedless indifference to results which may follow and the reckless taking of chance of accident happening without intent that any occur. . . ." Turner v. City of Ruleville, 735 So.2d 226, 229 (Miss. 1999) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 1270 (6th ed. 1991). In regard to punitive damages in the arena of automobile accidents, punitive damages are not allowed where the claim arises from an alleged traffic violation. See Mayfield v. Johnson, 202 So.2d 630 (Miss. 1967); Ulmer v. Bunner, 190 So.2d 448 (Miss. 1966); Maupin v. Dennis, 252 Miss. 496, 175 So.2d 130 (1965) (punitive damages are ordinarily recoverable only in cases where the negligence is so gross as to indicate reckless or wanton disregard for the safety of others, simple negligence is insufficient to warrant imposition of such damages.).
In the instant cause, the plaintiff has failed to bring forth any evidence of an action by the defendants that amounts to gross negligence or reckless disregard for others. The defendants have brought forth evidence that Terry Hunt was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol while operating the tractor-trailer. See Mississippi Crime Lab Report, attached as "exhibit C" to the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment. Though the plaintiffs have made allegations that Mr. Hunt was negligent in his operation of the vehicle, there is no evidence of speeding or other traffic violation. In fact, the plaintiff has provided no evidence of any action by the defendants that rises above simple negligence, but instead has rebutted the defendants' arguments by submitting that the plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages under Mississippi's wrongful death statute. See Plaintiffs' response to defendants' partial motion for summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages, p. 3. Therefore, the court finds that the plaintiff has failed to show that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the issue of punitive damages and the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment should be granted.
The court notes that while the plaintiffs' argument that Mississippi's wrongful death statute states that in a wrongful death action, "the party or parties suing shall recover all such damages allowable by law as the jury may determine to be just, taking into consideration all damages of every kind to the decedent and all the damages of every kind to any and all parties interested in the suit," correctly states the letter of the statute, it falls short of correctly stating the letter of the law in Mississippi. See Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-13; plaintiffs' response to defendants' partial motion for summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages, p. 2. Mississippi's punitive damages statute mandates that "[t]he court shall determine whether the issue of punitive damages may be submitted to the trier of fact; and, if so, the trier of fact shall determine whether to award punitive damages." Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65. Thus, it is necessary that the court first make a determination of whether punitive damages are warranted before a jury may consider the issue of amount of such damages, if any. Paracelsus Health Care Corp. v. Willard, 754 So.2d 437, 441 (Miss. 1999).
CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, the court finds that the defendants' motions for partial summary judgment should be granted. An order will issue accordingly.
THIS, the ___ day of June, 2000.
ORDER
In accordance with the memorandum opinion this day issued, it is ORDERED:
that the defendants motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED;
THIS, the ___ day of, 2000.