Baker v. RR Brink Locking Sys., Inc.

• Decision Date: 09 July 2013
• Docket Number: No. 12–60589.,12–60589.
• Citation: 721 F.3d 716
• Parties: Kelly BAKER, Guardian for Aaron Wayne Page, Plaintiff–Appellee v. RR BRINK LOCKING SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

721 F.3d 716

Kelly BAKER, Guardian for Aaron Wayne Page, Plaintiff–Appellee

v.RR BRINK LOCKING SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 12–60589.

United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit.

July 9, 2013.

Michael B. Holleman, Holleman Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Gulfport, MS, Plaintiff–Appellee.

James G. Wyly, III, Esq., Attorney, Scott Timothy Ellzey, Phelps Dunbar, L.L.P., Gulfport, MS, Jason Thomas Marsh, Esq., Phelps Dunbar, L.L.P., Jackson, MS, for Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

Before JOLLY, GARZA, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge:

Aaron Wayne Page (“Page”) was allegedly raped while in jail when he was nineteenyears old. He sued RR Brink Locking Systems, Inc. (“Brink”), among others, claiming the rape occurred as a result of ineffective locks on cell doors. In this interlocutory appeal, Brink argues that the district court erred in rejecting its contention that the statute of limitations began running against Page at the moment the alleged torts occurred because, even though at nineteen years old he was under the age of majority, he was emancipated at this time by operation of law based upon his felony record. The district court held that Page continued to suffer from the disability of minority at the time of the torts, despite being emancipated, and, thus, that he timely commenced this action by filing less than three years after his twenty-first birthday. We AFFIRM.

I.

On August 2, 2007, Page was a nineteen-year-old pre-trial detainee at the Harrison County Adult Detention Center. Page alleges that in the early morning hours, another inmate was able to leave his own cell and enter Page's, where he assaulted and raped Page. Page further contends these events were made possible, in part, by faulty locks Brink manufactured.

Page initially filed suit in February 2009. In February 2011, he amended his complaint adding Brink as a party and claims of negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty against it. Brink moved for summary judgment, contending Mississippi's three-year statute of limitations period, applicable to personal injury and products liability, applied. Brink argued Page was an emancipated minor when the alleged events occurred, because he was arrested and charged as an adult more than sixteen times before turning 21. SeeMiss.Code. Ann. § 93–11–65(8)(a). As such, the statute of limitations began to run at the time the alleged events occurred. Page countered that he continued to suffer from the disability of infancy until he turned 21, and thus that his February 2011 amendment was timely. SeeMiss.Code Ann. § 15–1–59.

The district court found Brink's arguments unpersuasive. It examined Mississippi's statute and case law, and determined that emancipation is a concept separate and distinct from the disability of infancy. Accordingly, it denied Brink's motion for summary judgment. Brink timely filed an interlocutory appeal.

II.

We have appellate jurisdiction to decide this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). “Questions of statutory interpretation are, of course, reviewed de novo.” Carder v. Cont'l Airlines, Inc., 636 F.3d 172, 174 (5th Cir.2011). Where, as here, a federal court exercises jurisdiction over state law causes of action based upon diversity of citizenship, see28 U.S.C. § 1332, we apply state substantive law as stated in the final decisions of the state's highest court. Shanks v. AlliedSignal, Inc., 169 F.3d 988, 993 (5th Cir.1999). “When there is no ruling by the state's highest court, it is the duty of the federal court to determine as best it can, what the highest court of the state would decide.” Lampton v. Diaz, 661 F.3d 897, 899 (5th Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The question presented in this appeal is whether an emancipated minor—who is emancipated only based upon his record of felonies—is entitled to the protection of the Mississippi savings statute, under which the disability of infancy is not removed until a person reaches age twenty-one. ¹Miss.Code Ann. § 15–1–59. The Supreme Court of Mississippi has not answered this question, but after thoroughly analyzing decisions in similar Mississippi cases, as well as the Mississippi Code, we conclude that the answer is yes.

A.

We begin by examining the relevant provisions of the Mississippi Code, which provide the framework for evaluating this case. There are several code provisions that are applicable in reaching the answer to today's question. First, we consider Chapter 1, Title 15 of the Mississippi Code, establishing the savings statute, which provides:

If any person entitled to bring any of the personal actions mentioned shall, at the time at which the cause of action accrued, be under the disability of infancy or unsoundness of mind, he may bring the actions within the times in this chapter respectively limited, after his disability shall be removed as provided by law.²

Miss.Code Ann. § 15–1–59. An “infant” for purposes of the savings statute is any person under twenty-one years of age. Miss.Code Ann. § 1–3–21.

Title 93, meanwhile, deals with domestic relations, a seemingly distant subject from our domain today. Section 93–11–65(8)(a) is entitled “Enforcement of Support of Dependents,” and establishes the situations under which a child may become emancipated, thus relieving obligations of parental support. It states in relevant part: ³

The duty of support of a child terminates upon the emancipation of the child. Unless otherwise provided for in the underlying child support judgment, emancipation shall occur when the child:

(i) Attains the age of twenty-one (21) years, or

(ii) Marries, or

(iii) Joins the military and serves on a full-time basis, or

(iv) Is convicted of a felony and is sentenced to incarceration of two (2) or more years for committing such felony.

Miss.Code Ann. § 93–11–65(8)(a) (Supp.2010).

Next, we look at Chapter 19 of Title 93, entitled “Removal of Disability of Minority,” which details circumstances whereby the chancery court may remove the disability of minority as to real estate rights and transactions for an individual under twenty-one. The statute further provides how such an individual may apply for removal of disability, that the disability of minority does not apply to married minors for purposes of actions involving marital rights, and that persons eighteen years of age or older are competent to contract in matters affecting personal property.⁴Miss.Code Ann. § 93–19–1 et seq. Importantly, § 93–19–9 describes the terms of a chancery court's decree of removal of minority:

The decree may be for partial removal of the disability of the minor so as to enable him to do some particular act proposed to be done and specified in the decree; or it may be general, and empower him to do all acts in reference to his property, and making contracts, and suing and being sued, and engaging in any profession or avocation, which he could do if he were twenty-one years of age; and the decree made shall distinctly specify to what extent the disability of the minor is removed, and what character of acts he is empowered to perform, notwithstanding his minority, and may impose such restrictions and qualifications as the court may adjudge proper.

Miss.Code Ann. § 93–19–09.

The plain language of the Code distinguishes between the two terms “disability of infancy” and “emancipation,” as evidenced by the separate treatment afforded to each under the provisions above. Each entails its own consequences; and the Code provides for different means by which the disability may be removed and emancipation may be effected.

B.

In this appeal, however, Brink contends that Page's alleged emancipation ⁵ had consequences outside those ascribed to emancipation in the Code. Essentially, it argues that when Page was emancipated, the effect was to remove his disability of infancy. The Code itself provides no support for this argument. Thus, Brink relies upon Mississippi case law, which it argues establishes a rule that a child who is emancipated ceases to suffer the disability of infancy because of his emancipation. This argument cannot prevail because it rests on a predicate that mischaracterizes Mississippi law.

Brink looks primarily to Ladner v. Logan, 857 So.2d 764 (Miss.2003), for sustenance. That case, however, is no lifeline for Brink. Brink contends the Mississippi Supreme Court “affirmed the trial court's conclusion that the children's ‘disabilities of infancy’ had been removed prior to them turning 21 years old and that, as such, only the youngest son had a viable claim.” See Br. of Appellant at 9–10. But the trial court made no such finding, and neither did the Mississippi Supreme Court. In Ladner, Cheryl Ladner sought payment of unpaid child support for her four children from her ex-husband, Woodrow Logan. 857 So.2d at 765. The trial court chancellor noted both the dates at which each child was emancipated ⁶ and the date at which each reached the age of majority, i.e., twenty-one. Ladner v. Logan, No. 19,882–D, at *3 (Ch.Ct.Pearl River Cnty.Miss. Mar. 27, 2002). It then held the child support claims of the three older children were time-barred, as more than seven years had elapsed from the time each reached the age of majority to the time they were joined as proper parties in Ladner's suit. Id. at *5–6.

On appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court addressed, inter alia, “[w]hether the chancellor erred in his application of the statute of limitations as it applied to the adult children.” 857 So.2d at 771. Ladner's argument on appeal was that “since the youngest child of four children became emancipated at the time of high school graduation, May of 1995, the statute cannot commence to run against any Plaintiff or any of the children until May of 2002.” Id. at 772. Thus, the issue before the court was not whether the statute began to run either upon a child's emancipation or upon his...