Thompson v. Erving's Hatcheries, Inc., 43906

• Decision Date: 23 May 1966
• Docket Number: No. 43906,43906
• Citation: 186 So.2d 756
• Parties: Eugene THOMPSON v. ERVING'S HATCHERIES, INC.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 756

186 So.2d 756

Eugene THOMPSON v. ERVING'S HATCHERIES, INC.

No. 43906.

Supreme Court of Mississippi May 23, 1966.

Gore & Gore, Marks, Satterfield, Shell, Williams & Buford, Jackson, for appellant.

Lomax B. Lamb, Jr., Marks, for appellee.

JONES, Justice.

Appellant, a practicing attorney, was sued by appellee in the Circuit Court of Quitman County. Appellee sought damages, alleging that the negligence of appellant permitted the statute of limitations to run against a suit on open account for $2500 given by William Johnson Garrott.

On trial, the lower court directed the jury peremptorily to find for appellee for the amount sued for ($2500), plus interest and other items.

From this judgment, the case comes here. We affirm as to liability, but reverse and remand as to the amount of damages.

This case is a sequel to Erving's Hatcheries, Inc. v. Garrott, 250 Miss. 701, 168 So.2d 52 (1964). The facts on which the liability of appellant is based are recited in that case, and we deem it unnecessary to repeat them.

Appellant's negligence and legal liability for any damages shown to have been proximately caused thereby are clear.

On the degree of negligence required to be proven in order to recover against an attorney, we are cited only two Mississippi cases: Fitch v. Scott, 4 Miss. (3 How.) 314 (1839), in which our Court relied upon prior English decisions, and held:

'The law implies a promise on the part of attorneys, that they will execute the business entrusted to their professional management, with a reasonable degree of care, skill and despatch, and they are liable to an action, if guilty of a default in either of these duties, whereby their clients are injured. Chitty on Contracts, 166. There must, however, be gross negligence or ignorance, and if the attorney acts to the best of his skill, and with a bona fide degree of attention, he will not be responsible, 4 Burrow's Rep. 2061. This was the rule laid down by Lord Mansfield in the case of Pitt v. Yalden, in which he remarked that, that part of the profession which is carried on by attorneys is liberal and reputable, as well as useful to the public, when they conduct themselves with honor and integrity, and that they ought to be protected when they act to the best of their knowledge and ability. * * *' (4 Miss. at 317-318.)

Grayson v. Wilkinson, 13 Miss. (5 S. & M.) 268 (1845), recognizes the 'gross' negligence rule. However, in Annotation, 45 A.L.R.2d section 3, pp. 5, 11-12 (1956), it is stated:

' § 3. Measure of care and skill required.

(a) Generally.

While occasionally language may be found, especially in the earlier cases, suggesting that an attorney is liable to his client for the conduct of litigation only where he is chargeable with gross negligence or want of skill, it appears to be the presently well-settled rule in most if not all of the American jurisdictions in which the question has arisen that an attorney to whom the conduct of litigation is entrusted may be held liable to his client for damages resulting from his failure to exercise ordinary care, skill, and diligence, or, as it is frequently expressed, that degree of care skill, and diligence which is commonly possessed and exercised by attorneys in practice in the jurisdiction.'

In 7 Am.Jur.2d Attorneys at Law section 168 at 146 (1963), it is stated:

'His duty to his client requires an attorney to exercise the knowledge, skill, and ability ordinarily possessed and exercised by members of the legal profession similarly situated. He is not bound to exercise extraordinary diligence, but only a reasonable degree of care and skill, having reference to the character of the business he undertakes to do. Within this standard, he will be protected so long as he acts honestly and in good faith.

'Although it has been said that an attorney is liable to his client only for 'gross negligence' or 'gross ignorance' in the performance of his professional duties, these terms apparently mean only want or absence of reasonable care, skill, and knowledge.'

Dean John W. Wade of the Vanderbilt University School of Law, writing in 12 Vanderbilt Law Review 755 (1958-1959), on 'The Attorney's Liability for Negligence' by his great number of citations and able analyses thereof, manifests an exhaustive research on this subject. Relative to the degree of negligence required to render an attorney liable, he states:

'There has been universal agreement that a lawyer is not an insurer or guarantor of the correctness of his work or of the results which will be attained. He is liable only for negligent failure to use the requisite care or skill.

'The early cases frequently stated that the attorney is liable only for gross negligence or gross ignorance-often using the Latin phrases, late culpa and crassa negligentia. This has sometimes been regarded as laying down a different standard of care from that expressed by ordinary negligence. A study of the early English cases, however, raises considerable doubt if a distinction was really intended. This was the formative period of the negligence concept, and the terminology had not become conventional. In the first case where the matter was discussed, Lord Mansfield used the two Latin expressions and referred to gross negligence and ignorance, but his language later in the opinion indicates that he was simply trying to describe 'a culpable negligence'-negligence of the type which involves fault. In 1830 Chief Justice Tindall declared that:

It would be extremely difficult to define the exact limit by which the skill and diligence which an attorney undertakes to furnish in the conduct of a cause is bounded; or to trace precisely the dividing line between that reasonable skill and diligence which appears to satisfy his undertaking, and that crassa negligentia, or lata culpa mentioned in some of the cases, for which he is undoubtedly responsible.

There is no indication that a gap may exist between the exercise of reasonable skill and diligence on the one hand and gross negligence on the other; the failure to exercise such skill and diligence was apparently regarded as amounting to gross negligence.

'A few years later Baron Rolfe made his famous statement that he 'could...