Thompson v. Lee County School Dist.

• Decision Date: 19 January 2006
• Docket Number: No. 2003-CT-02395-SCT.,2003-CT-02395-SCT.
• Citation: 925 So.2d 57
• Parties: Joseph THOMPSON, by and Through His Mother and Next Friend, Nancy THOMPSON v. LEE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 57

925 So.2d 57

Joseph THOMPSON, by and Through His Mother and Next Friend, Nancy THOMPSON v. LEE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT.

No. 2003-CT-02395-SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

January 19, 2006.

J. Mark Shelton, Jana Dawson, Tupelo, for appellant.

William C. Murphree, Gary L. Carnathan, Tupelo, for appellee.

EN BANC.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

CARLSON, Justice, for the Court.

¶ 1. Joseph Thompson, by and through his mother and next friend, Nancy Thompson, filed suit in the Lee County Circuit Court pursuant to the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA), Miss.Code Ann. Sections 11-46-1 et seq., against George Gregory and the Lee County School District for injuries from an accident involving a vehicle driven by Thompson and a Lee County school bus driven by Gregory. After a bench trial, the Lee County Circuit Court, Judge Thomas J. Gardner, III, presiding, found: Lee County liable for the accident and assessed damages in the amount of $200,000; and Thompson fifty percent contributorily negligent. Judgment was entered against Lee County and in favor of Thompson in the amount of $100,000. Thompson appealed from this final judgment, claiming error on the part of the circuit court in the assessment of contributory negligence against him, and in the assessment of damages, which Thompson claimed to be inadequate. We assigned this case to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court's assignment of comparative negligence to Thompson; rendered judgment in favor of Thompson and against Lee County on the issue of negligence; reversed the trial court's award of damages as inadequate and unreasonable; and remanded the case for a new trial as to damages. Thompson v. Lee County School District, 925 So.2d 121, 2005 WL 895026 (Miss.Ct.App.2005). Upon a grant of certiorari, we find the Court of Appeals erred. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate and affirm the final judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Lee County.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN THE TRIAL COURT

¶ 2. The following facts are gleaned from the opinion of the Court of Appeals:

On December 4, 1998, Thompson was driving his red truck in the northbound lane of Romie Hill Road, a two-lane road in Shannon, Mississippi. As Thompson approached the intersection of Romie Hill Road and County Road 300, the school bus driven by Gregory pulled out in front of Thompson, causing a collision between the two vehicles. Fortunately, the bus was empty of children at the time. There were no stop signs or stop lights to halt or slow traffic proceeding north or southbound on Romie Hill Road; thus, Thompson was proceeding with the right of way and without any traffic signal requiring him to slow down or stop. There were stop signs on each of the eastbound and westbound sides of County Road 300; thus, the school bus had to proceed through a stop sign in order to enter Romie Hill Road. Whether Gregory came to a complete stop at this stop sign before entering Romie Hill Road became one of the contested factual issues in the case, but there was no dispute about the fact that Thompson faced no road sign, traffic light, or other warning signal as he approached the intersection of Romie Hill Road and County Road 300.

Gregory suffered only minor injuries from the collision, but Thompson suffered numerous injuries, including severe head trauma. Thompson was taken to the emergency room at North Mississippi Medical Center where he remained in a coma for three days. Thompson remained hospitalized until December 31, 1998, incurring roughly $50,000 in medical bills from his extended stay at the hospital.

Experts at trial testified that while Thompson has made a virtually full physical recovery, he suffers from permanent cognitive defects as a result of the head injuries caused by the accident. Among these permanent cognitive defects are the following: loss of language skill, mild dysnomia, reduced motor functioning and coordination, abnormally reduced attentional skills, mental slowness and inefficiency in learning, and visual perceptual difficulties.

Id. at 123, at **1 ¶¶ 4-6

¶ 3. Joseph Thompson (Joey) was nineteen years old at the time of the accident and twenty years old at the time this suit commenced. After considerable discovery and several continuances, a bench trial was conducted before Judge Gardner on October 6, 2003. Six witnesses testified in Joey's case-in-chief: Robert Gwin, the Shannon police officer who investigated the accident;¹ George Gregory, the school bus driver; Jay Miller, the head coach and defensive coordinator at Itawamba Community College in Fulton;² Nancy Thompson; Sherry Gill, Joey's oldest sister; and, Thelma Hubbard, Joey's older sister. At the close of the plaintiff's case-in-chief, the defendants offered a motion for a directed verdict, and the trial judge granted a directed verdict as to Gregory, but denied the motion as to the Lee County School District (Lee County). In the defendant's case-in-chief, Gregory and Dr. David E. Stewart, a certified rehabilitation counselor, testified. The plaintiff offered no rebuttal.³ Lee County again requested a judgment of dismissal based on the alleged failure of the plaintiff to make out a prima facie case on the issue of liability, or alternatively, that the trial court find Joey to have been contributorily negligent. After a recess in order to consider the evidence, Judge Gardner heard arguments from counsel and immediately thereafter issued his bench ruling as follows:

Motion for a directed verdict in favor of the defendant will be overruled.

While I don't feel obligated to do so, I think it's appropriate that I discuss somewhat my findings and conclusions in resolving this matter.

The testimony, the only testimony before this Court is to the effect that Mr. Gregory stopped at the stop sign, that he watched a vehicle turning left near him right by — almost beside him. I guess I understood it was a little north of the intersection itself. That when that vehicle had cleared, he looked back to the right, which would have been to the south and in the direction from which the plaintiff was coming. He did not see the vehicle. As a matter of fact, he said in direct response to someone's question, the first time he saw the car was when he got out of the bus, which would have been after the accident occurred.

Now, in considering where the area of impact took place, I think it is equally clear, no contradiction whatsoever that it occurred in the northbound lane occupied by the plaintiff in this case or by Joey Thompson.

Based on the only testimony concerning what parts of the vehicles came into contact, it seems apparent to me that the bus was hit by the automobile apparently in a fairly head-on circumstance, that is, the car was travelling straight in a northerly direction, striking the bus behind or in the vicinity behind the passenger door located on the right-hand side of the bus somewhat behind the driver's seat, knocking the driver with apparent substantial force from his seat into the doorway breaking glass out, which indicates to me substantial impact, which as it applies to this case would indicate to me that the plaintiff, Joey Thompson, was travelling at an increased rate.

I do not know, but there is testimony or an indication that the speed limit there was 45 miles an hour. I do not know whether the speed exceeded 45, but it was a substantial impact and, no doubt, caused pretty substantial injury to the vehicles, as well as to both of the drivers.

The front of the bus itself was based on the drawing which is a part of the police report in this case which is probably conservative, by the way, because it would appear to me that in all likelihood the bus was at least as indicated in that drawing and possibly slightly more for the impact to have been in the northbound lane of traffic.

In any event, all of these things considered, the Court is certainly of the opinion that the defendant — I'm sorry, the plaintiff in this case, Joseph Thompson, was contributorily negligent in causing the accident.

Having said that, the Court is of the opinion that judgment should be entered on the Complaint filed in this cause for the plaintiff, Nancy Thompson or Joseph Thompson, he is 24 years of age now. There has not been any conservatorship set up or anything in that nature.

* * * * * *

The Court is of the opinion that judgment be entered for the plaintiff in this case in the sum of $100,000.

On October 9, 2003, Judge Gardner entered a final judgment consistent with his bench ruling. This final judgment stated, inter alia:

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that George Gregory be dismissed from this action as a named defendant pursuant to the Tort Claims Act.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff is entitled to a judgement (sic) of and from the Defendant, Lee County School District, and the Court does assess Plaintiff's total damages to be $200,000, and does further find that Plaintiff's actions constituted comparative negligence, and that Plaintiff's total damages should be reduced by that portion of his own negligence, which the Court finds to be 50 per cent, and therefore the Court awards a total judgment in favor of Plaintiff of and from the Defendant, Lee County School District, in the amount of $100,000.00, for which execution may issue according to law.

¶ 4. It is from this final judgment that Joey has appealed, claiming the trial court committed reversible error in (1) finding him to be contributorily negligent and, (2) awarding damages of only $200,000. We assigned this case to the Court of Appeals. See Miss.Code Ann. § 9-4-3(1) (Rev.2002).

PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

¶5. The Court of Appeals, relying on its decision in City of Newton v. Lofton, 840 So.2d 833, 837 (Miss.Ct.App.2003), stated, inter alia: "[t]he assignment of contributory negligence in the case sub judice was based entirely upon certain inferences drawn by the trial judge from facts in the case;...