Opinion
CAUSE NO. 1:99CV307-D-D.
March 6, 2001.
OPINION
This cause is before the court upon the Defendants, W.S. Thomas Trucking, Inc.'s and Terry Michael McIntyre's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages. Upon due consideration, the court finds the motion to be well taken and should be granted.
Factual Background
This is a wrongful death action arising from an automobile/truck accident on August 16, 1997. Assuming the facts alleged by the Plaintiff are true, the Defendant, McIntyre was traveling southbound on Highway 45 Alternate at a speed of 72 miles per hour as he approached the intersection with State Highway 8. The speed limit on Highway 45A was 55 miles per hour. As McIntyre approached the intersection, he saw a Pontiac approaching from the west on State Highway 8. McIntyre noticed that it appeared as though the Pontiac was not going to stop at the intersection and McIntyre began slowing down. When the Pontiac entered the intersection and into McIntyre's lane of travel, McIntyre applied his brakes and steered into the left, northbound lane of travel. After leaving at least 86 feet of skid marks, McIntyre collided with the rear portion of the Pontiac resulting in the death of Terrell Hamilton. Terrell Hamilton was a passenger in the Pontiac and the Defendant, Sullivan, was the driver.
The Plaintiff alleges that; 1) McIntyre ignored the traffic control device warning southbound traffic on Highway 45A to proceed with caution in approaching and traversing said interstate; 2) McIntyre failed to decrease the speed of his vehicle as it approached the intersection in violation of the provisions of M.C.A. § 63-3-505; 3) McIntyre failed to maintain a proper lookout for traffic entering the intersection on Highway 8; 4) McIntyre failed to maintain proper control over his vehicle; and 5) in other ways negligently operated his vehicle so as to cause the collision and the resulting death of Terrell Hamilton. Specifically, the Plaintiff claims that because McIntyre was speeding and steered into the northbound lane of traffic after seeing the Pontiac run a stop sign, he is guilty of gross negligence. Therefore, The Plaintiff argues she is entitled to punitive damages.
Summary Judgment Standard
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, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2554, 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"). Under Rule 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the burden then 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, 106 S.Ct. at 2553, 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, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2513, 91 L.Ed.2d 202, 216 (1986). 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 that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. at 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d at 273. Before finding that no genuine issue for trial 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 Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538, 552 (1986).
Punitive Damages
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. 2000).
The Mississippi Supreme Court has 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] 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 Aldridge v. Johnson, 318 So.2d 870 (Miss. 1975), the Mississippi Supreme Court decided a punitive damages instruction by the trial court was not appropriate in an automobile accident case where the defendant motorist was traveling 70 miles per hour on the wrong side of the road.Id. at 872. The defendant motorist had just passed a sign indicating an intersection and advising the motorist to "SLOW TO 45." Id. He entered the opposing lane of travel while attempting to pass two automobiles, the highway was marked with double yellow lines, and it was raining. Id. The Court held that this evidence was insufficient to support a punitive damages award because "there was no willful, gross and wanton negligence. . ." Id. at 872.
By contrast, the court in Collins v. Black, 380 So.2d 241 (Miss. 1980), found sufficient evidence to warrant a jury's award of punitive damages. The facts were undisputed that the defendant motorist voluntarily consumed a sufficient amount of intoxicating beverages to affect her ability to safely operate a motor vehicle, was speeding, driving on the wrong side of the road, and failed to stop after the collision. Id. at 244. Collins is however distinguishable from the case at hand. The court has no evidence before it that McIntyre had consumed any alcohol or left the scene of the accident.
The Plaintiff relies on Dame v. Estes, 101 So.2d 644 (Miss. 1958), in their argument that they are entitled to punitive damages. In Dame, the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed and remanded on grounds that the trial court failed to give a punitive damage instruction. Id. at 649. Evidence was introduced that the defendant motorist was driving in excess of the city speed limit, that she either ignored or wholly failed to see a stop sign, and made no effort to stop or even check her speed at the intersection and wholly failed to see the plaintiff's vehicle until it was directly in front of her. Id. at 645. The court finds the case at hand is clearly distinguishable from Dame. McIntyre did not run a stop sign and he did not fail to check his speed. The evidence before the court indicates that the Defendant, Sullivan, ran a stop sign, not McIntyre and McIntyre left over 86 feet of skid marks while trying to avoid hitting the Pontiac.
In the instant cause, the plaintiff has failed to bring forth any evidence of an action by the defendants that amount to gross negligence or reckless disregard for others. The court finds there is no genuine issue of material facts and the Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages.
Conclusion
For the forgoing reasons, the court finds that the Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment should be granted. An order will issue accordingly.
ORDER GRANTING PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Pursuant to a memorandum opinion issued this day, it is hereby ORDERED that
Defendants, W.S. Thomas Trucking, Inc. and Terry Michael McIntyre's Motion for partial summary judgment (docket entry # 52) is GRANTED; and
Plaintiff's claims for punitive damages are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to the Defendants, W.S. Thomas Trucking, Inc. and Terry Michael McIntyre.