Bridges v. Enterprise Products Co., Inc., Civil Action No. 3:05-cv-786-WHB-LRA.
| Decision Date | 14 March 2008 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3:05-cv-786-WHB-LRA. |
| Citation | 551 F.Supp.2d 549 |
| Parties | Rusty BRIDGES, Individually and on Behalf of all Wrongful Death Beneficiaries and on Behalf of the Estate of Mary Claudine Bridges, Plaintiff v. ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC., d/b/a Enterprise Transportation Company, Raymond Toulmon, and John Does 1-5, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi |
James Ashley Ogden, Ogden & Associates, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff.
Jackson H. Ables, III, William Bienville Skipper, Daniel, Coker, Horton & Bell, Jackson, MS, for Defendants.
This cause is before the Court on the post-trial motions filed by the parties. The Court has considered the Motions, Responses, Rebuttals if filed, attachments to the pleadings, as well as supporting and opposing authorities and finds:
The Motion of Plaintiff for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict or, in the alternative New Trial or, in the alternative Additur is not well taken and should be denied.
The Motion of Defendants to Alter the Judgment to Order Remittiturs of Pennock's and Creech's Losses of Society and Companionship is not well taken and should be denied.
The Motion of Defendants to Amend the Amended Judgment Entered January 10, 2008, is not well taken and should be denied.
On December 27, 2005, Plaintiff filed the subject wrongful death lawsuit, which arises from the death of Mary Claudine Bridges ("Bridges") who was fatally injured in a pedestrian/motor vehicle collision on December 16, 2005. The case was tried to a jury beginning on March 5, 2007, through March 7, 2007. In a verdict by special interrogatories, the jury found in favor of Plaintiff on the claim of negligence, and found that Defendant Raymond Toulmon was 100% liable for the subject accident. The jury awarded damages in the amount of $150,000 for loss of income, $6,585 for funeral expenses, and $4,000,000 for loss of society and companionship. The $4,000,000 award for non-economic damages was reduced to $1,000,000 by the Court in accordance with Mississippi Code Annotated Section ll-l-60(2)(b), which limits the recovery of non-economic damages in lawsuits filed on or after September 1, 2004.
On August 7, 2007, this Court entered an Opinion and Order on the parties' post-trial motions and found, inter alia, that the jury's award of non-economic damages was excessive. By that Opinion and Order, Plaintiff was granted ten days in which to either accept a remitted award of noneconomic damages in the amount of $600,000 or proceed with a second trial on that issue. On September 17, 2007, upon denying Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration, the Court ordered a new trial on the claim for non-economic damages.
The claim for non-economic damages was retried to a jury beginning on January 7, 2008, through January 8, 2008. In a verdict by special interrogatories, the jury found in favor of Rusty Bridges, Judy Pennock, and the Estate of Brenda Creech (collectively, "Beneficiaries"), on their claims for loss of society and companionship, and awarded damages as follows:
Rusty Bridges: $150,000
Judy Pennock: $150,000
Estate of Brenda Creech1: $ 75,000
An Amended judgment was entered on January 10, 2008. The post-trial motions of the parties are now before the Court.
Plaintiff has filed motions seeking a judgment not withstanding the verdict ("JNOV"), or in the alternative a new trial, or in the alternative, an additur. Each motion is purportedly brought pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP").2 The Court finds that while Rule 59 allows a court to grant a new trial, or to alter or amend a judgment, see FED.R.CIVP. 59(a), (b) & (e), it does not provide any basis for granting a JNOV. Instead, a motion for JNOV, which is now referred to as a judgment as a matter of law, see Allstate Ins. Co. v. Receivable Fin. Co., L.L.C., 501 F.3d 398, 405 (5th Cir. 2007), is governed by FRCP 50(a), which provides:
If during a trial by jury a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue, the court may determine the issue against that party and may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against that party with respect to a claim or defense that cannot under the controlling law be maintained or defeated without a favorable finding on that issue.
FED.R.CIV.P. 50(a). See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133, 149, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000) () (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)). In determining whether to grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the Court must apply the following standard:
A judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) should be granted by the trial court only when the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of the moving party that reasonable jurors could not arrive at a contrary verdict, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made, and giving that party the advantage of every fair and reasonable inference which the evidence justifies.
Spuler v. Pickar, 958 F.2d 103, 105 (5th Cir.1992) (citing Harwood & Assoc., Inc. v. Texas Bank & Trust, 654 F.2d 1073, 1076 (5th Cir. Unit A Sept.1981)). When considering a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the Court must consider all of the evidence contained in the record. Reeves, 530 U.S. at 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097.
In doing so, however, the court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence. Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge. Thus, although the court should review the record as a whole, it must disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe. That is, the court should give credence to the evidence favoring the nonmovant as well as that evidence supporting the moving party that is uncontradicted and unimpeached, at least to the extent that that evidence comes from disinterested witnesses.
Id. at 150-51, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (citations omitted). This Court "will not disturb the jury's verdict unless, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff], the facts and inferences point so overwhelmingly to [the defendants] that reasonable jurors could not have arrived at a verdict except in [their] favor." Streber v. Hunter, 221 F.3d 701, 721 (5th Cir.2000) (citing Douglas v. DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations Co., 144 F.3d 364, 369 (5th Cir.1998)).
In the case sub judice, Plaintiff has filed the subject motion for the purpose of increasing the amount of non-economic damages awarded by the jury. See Mot. for JNOV, ¶ 13 (). Plaintiff, however, has not cited any authority by which a court may use Rule 50(a) for such purposes. Rule 50(a) permits a court to enter judgment either for or against a party in cases in which there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find, or not find, for that party on an issue. Streber, 221 F.3d at 721. In the second trial of this case, the only issue before the jury was whether the Beneficiaries were entitled to recover noneconomic damages. As the jury already found in favor of the Beneficiaries on that issue, there is no basis for granting a judgment as a matter of law in their favor. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Motion for JNOV should be denied.
Under FRCP Rule 59(a):
The court may, on motion, grant a new trial on all or some of the issues — and to any party — as follows:
after a jury trial, for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court.
FED.R.CIV.P. 59(a)(1)(A). Under this Rule, a new trial should not be granted "unless it is reasonably clear that prejudicial error has crept into the record or that substantial justice has not been done ..." 11 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & MARY KAY KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE & sect; 2803. Grounds for granting a new trial include: (1) the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, (2) the verdict is too large or too small, (3) newly discovered evidence, (4) the verdict was tainted by conduct of counsel or the court, (5) misconduct affecting the jury, (6) the verdict was based on false testimony, or (7) a party was unfairly made the victim of surprise and was denied an opportunity to cure the resulting prejudice. Id. at & sect; 2803.
Plaintiff first argues that a new trial is warranted because the Court erred in failing to enter a pretrial order specific to the second trial on non-economic damages.3 In support of this argument, Plaintiff relies on FRCP Rule 16, which provides, in relevant part:
(d) After any conference under this rule, the court should issue an order reciting the action taken. This order controls the course of the action unless the court modifies it.
(e) The court may hold a final pretrial conference to formulate a trial plan, including a plan to facilitate the admission of evidence.... The court may modify the order issued after a final pretrial conference only to prevent manifest injustice.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spriggins v. Magnolia Hill, LLC
...Cir. 2000) (citing Douglas v. DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations Co., 144 F.3d 364, 369 (5th Cir. 1998)).Bridges v. Enter. Prods. Co., 551 F. Supp. 2d 549, 552-53 (S.D. Miss. 2008). By her motion, plaintiff asks this court to set aside the jury's verdict - that which favored the defendant - ......
-
Hensley v. Bulk Transp. & Tracy G. Marbles
...at *2 (S.D. Miss. June 23, 2011) (citing McGowan v. Estate of Wright, 524 So. 2d 308, 311 (Miss. 1988); Bridges v. Enter. Prods. Co., 551 F. Supp. 2d 549, 557 (S.D. Miss. 2008)). The Court thus ventures an Erie guess and finds that Mississippi courts would follow the majority rule and not a......
-
Spooner v. Floore
...Code Annotated Section 11-7-13, but these damages are not necessarily due to the same claimants. See Bridges v. Enter. Products Co., 551 F. Supp. 2d 549, 557 (S.D. Miss. 2008).For instance, the estate is entitled to recover funeral costs and final medical expenses. The beneficiaries are ent......
-
Miami Valley Fair Hous. Ctr., Inc. v. Group
...of Rule 16 merely because a party fails to include a known claim or witness in a pretrial order." Bridges v. Enterprise Prods. Co., Inc., 551 F. Supp.2d 549, 555 (S.D. Miss. 2008).Although Plaintiff will not be permitted to pursue its claim for injunctive relief, legal remedies are still av......
-
Photographs, slides, films and videos
...photos would still be admissible to impeach the witness’ denial of the recent drug use. 26 Bridges v. Enterprise Products Co., Inc. , 551 F.Supp.2d 549 (S.D., Miss., 2008). Photographs of the scene of a fatal accident and testimony regarding the manner in which the victim died were not rele......
-
Enforcement
...trial or one whom the Respondent intended to call as a witness, the identity of said 58 See Bridges v. Enterprise Products Co., Inc. , 551 F.Supp.2d 549 (S.D., Miss., 2008). Form 17.1 Guerrilla Discovery 17-22 Witness also fell within the Pretrial Disclosures provisions of Rule 26(a)(3)(A)(......
-
Photographs, Slides, Films and Videos
...does not mean that he was “asking for” rape, sexual assault, or other forms of abuse. 22 Bridges v. Enterprise Products Co., Inc. , 551 F.Supp.2d 549 (S.D., Miss., 2008). Photographs of the scene of a fatal accident and testimony regarding the manner in which the victim died were not releva......
-
Photographs, Slides, Films and Videos
...photos would still be admissible to impeach the witness’ denial of the recent drug use. 24 Bridges v. Enterprise Products Co., Inc. , 551 F.Supp.2d 549 (S.D., Miss., 2008). Photographs of the scene of a fatal accident and testimony regarding the manner in which the victim died were not rele......