Walker v. Brown

Decision Date07 January 1987
Docket NumberNo. 55789,55789
PartiesRalph WALKER and Ralph Walker, Inc. v. Raymond BROWN, Jr., Raymond Brown, Sr., d/b/a Raymond Brown Trucking, et al.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Robert W. Camp, H.A. Courtney, Jackson, for appellant.

Trudy Ann Black, Gretna, La., Roger K. Doolittle, Jackson, for appellee.

Before WALKER, C.J., and DAN M. LEE and GRIFFIN, JJ.

DAN M. LEE, Justice, for the court:

Ralph Walker individually and Ralph Walker, Inc. appeal from a jury verdict holding them jointly liable with Valentine Truck Brokers, Inc. for the conversion of a refrigerated trailer. The adverse judgment in the Circuit Court of Rankin County held the trio liable for $5,000 actual damages and $50,000 punitive damages.

The original action was brought and tried against two additional defendants, but Victor Valentine and Robert Knipe, a dispatcher for Valentine Truck Brokers, Inc. were dismissed at the close of the evidence. Although judgment was rendered jointly against Valentine Truck Brokers, Inc. and Ralph Walker, Valentine has not appealed because it had gone out of business, and is now defunct and judgment proof, leaving Ralph Walker, Individually and Ralph Walker, Inc. as the only viable appellants in interest. Ralph Walker and Ralph Walker, Inc. appeal, assigning the following errors:

I.

THE VERDICT OF THE JURY WAS AGAINST THE OVERWHELMING WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

II.

THE VERDICT OF THE JURY IN AWARDING $5,000.00 ACTUAL DAMAGES WAS AGAINST THE OVERWHELMING

WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

III.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING A PUNITIVE DAMAGE INSTRUCTION.

IV.

ANY AWARD OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST APPELLANT, RALPH WALKER, WAS AGAINST THE OVERWHELMING WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND LAW.

V.

THE AWARD OF $50,000.00 punitive damages by the jury was excessive, against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and evinced bias, prejudice and passion.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

On September 2, 1981, Raymond Brown, Jr. began hauling a perishable load of lettuce and celery from Salinas, California to destinations in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and Bedford, Ohio. He only made it as far as Mississippi where his trailer containing the perishable load was taken. The trailer was returned after four to five days, but its detention formed the basis for this suit in conversion.

Raymond Brown, Jr., a Virginia resident, and his father, Raymond Brown, Sr., operated more or less as trucking partners. Brown, Sr. rented a refrigerator trailer under a lease/purchase agreement and had given the trailer to his son to make a living.

On September 2, 1981, the younger Brown was traveling with his wife and son when he learned through Valentine Truck Brokers, Inc., a shipping broker that drew commissions for bringing shippers, receivers and carriers together, that a load needed shipment east. The younger Brown contracted with Valentine to haul the load. Though no delivery date was discussed, Brown was aware that the highly perishable load of lettuce should reach Pennsylvania and Ohio before September 9, 1981.

Not having permits to drive a more northern route, Brown intended to drive a southern route which would take him through Arkansas, Tennessee or Mississippi. Brown realized at the time the trailer was loaded that it would be too heavy to meet the more restrictive weight limits in those states. He decided to drive through Mississippi and avoid the multiplied risk.

Brown encountered several problems along the way. His brakes failed before he could get out of California. In the desert, he blew two tires. Exhausted, Brown testified he had to rest for nearly a day and a half in two different locations. As a result of these and other problems, Valentine Truck Brokers electronically advanced funds to Brown or those to whom Brown owed money. The parties agree Valentine advanced at least $1,659.00 to Brown. Another advance check of $303.00 was offered by Valentine but later withdrawn. The total hauling fee due Brown at the termination point in Pennsylvania was $2,300.00 net after brokerage.

It was September 9 when Brown pulled into Vicksburg, Mississippi. He knew he was late, but when he called to inform Valentine of his plan to circumvent the scales, he said he was told to just get going. Brown did, but he got caught by tax commission enforcement officers. He followed them to a weigh station, where it was determined that the rig was overweight. Brown learned that the fine would be $126.00 and he would need an additional $300.00 advance to pay this fine, and to hire someone to haul the overweight part of the load to the state line and reload it onto his trailer.

He disconnected the trailer and drove his cab to a nearby truck stop on U.S. Highway 49 to call Valentine Truck Brokers to ask for money. He spoke with dispatcher Robert Knipe. There was a dispute as to whether Knipe stated the money would be or might be wired but Knipe told Brown to go to the S.O.S. Truck Stop in Clinton, Mississippi, where Valentine did business. Brown proceeded to the truck stop and waited for approximately four hours, but no money arrived. Brown then returned to the scales to check on the load and discovered that the trailer had been moved.

Knipe testified that after receiving Brown's call, he telephoned the buyers in Pennsylvania and Ohio who cancelled the orders because they were late. Knipe then found a dealer for the perishable produce on a consignment basis in Atlanta. To get the load sold, attempting to minimize their joint loss, Knipe called Ralph Walker's trucking business, located on U.S. Highway 49 South, because Walker had helped Valentine pick up troubled loads on several previous occasions. He did not tell Walker who owned the trailer, but he told him that there was a overloaded trailer with perishable lettuce which needed to be taken to Atlanta for salvage immediately. Walker would be reimbursed for paying the fine and services.

Walker testified that he sent one tractor trailer and another cab to handle the job. The excess load was placed on the tractor trailer and the cab towed Brown's trailer. Once past the scales, Walker's men reloaded Brown's trailer and drove it on to Atlanta.

Walker testified that he knew the trailer wasn't Knipe's, but he thought it belonged to somebody "that was affiliated with Mr. Robert (Knipe)," so it would be alright. Walker said he did not ask permission to take the trailer because he didn't know the owner and he doubted that the owner knew him.

Knipe testified that on September 9 he spoke with Brown, Sr., who gave him permission to take the trailer. However, he wasn't sure whether that conversation preceded or followed his call to Walker. Raymond Brown, Sr. testified and denied he ever gave Knipe permission, and stated that, in any event, he did not speak with Knipe until September 12 because he was out of town.

After dropping the produce in Atlanta, Walker had Brown's trailer returned to Mississippi but taken to Houston, Mississippi and left at a plant where Walker did a lot of business. Walker thought he would leave Brown's trailer there because he often ran loads from Houston to Jackson, so it could easily be returned. He thought this would allow Brown and Valentine Truck Brokers to conclude their business as to who owed whom with regard to the lateness of the load of perishable lettuce resulting in the cancellation by the recipients.

Workers at the scales told Brown who took his trailer. On the same day it was taken, Brown went to Walker's office. Brown testified that he told Walker that his trailer was stolen and he wanted it back. Walker testified that he explained to Brown that the load of perishable produce was being salvaged in Atlanta, and Brown seemed satisfied with this. Walker told him to call Valentine Truck Brokers and speak with Knipe because it was Brown and Knipe's deal and not his.

Walker heard nothing more from Brown until September 12, when a Mississippi Highway Patrol Investigator and a Richland police officer questioned Walker about the trailer. Brown had reported it stolen, but Walker agreed to have it back within eight hours. The trailer was returned to the truck stop on U.S. Highway 49 near the weigh station about 2:00 a.m. on September 13. The trailer was undamaged. Walker was never charged.

The younger Brown spent $420.00 on food and hotel bills while in Jackson, and resorted to asking trucker friends to buy meals for his family when he ran out of money. Brown even accepted the Highway Patrol Investigator's offer to buy his son a meal.

LAW
I.

Upon these facts the jury returned a verdict of $5,000.00 for actual damages and $50,000.00 punitive damages. The first assignment of error asks:

WAS THE VERDICT AGAINST THE OVERWHELMING WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE?

Walker and Ralph Walker, Inc. argue here that they cannot be liable for conversion because Ralph Walker, at worst, acted on the mistaken belief that Robert Knipe had authority to order the trailer moved and the produce salvaged. We are told that Walker reasonably believed Knipe had this authority.

Conversion requires an intent to exercise dominion or control over goods which is inconsistent with the true owner's right. Mississippi Motor Finance, Inc. v. Thomas, 246 Miss. 14, 149 So.2d 20 (1963). Walker's good faith reliance does not absolve him from liability as to actual damages, however, a different result is reached as to punitive damages.

Prosser and Keeton point out that the intent required is not the intent to be a wrongdoer.

The intent required is not necessarily a matter of conscious wrongdoing. It is rather an intent to exercise a dominion or control over the goods which is in fact inconsistent with the plaintiff's rights. A purchaser of stolen goods or an auctioneer who sells them in the utmost good faith becomes a converter, since the auctioneer's acts are an interference with the control of the property. A mistake of law or fact is no defense. "Persons deal with the property in chattels or exercise acts of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 cases
  • Worldwide Forest Products, Inc. v. Winston Holding Co., Civil Action No. 1:96CV178-A (N.D. Miss. 1/8/1999)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi
    • January 8, 1999
    ...which is inconsistent with the true owner's right." Terrell v. Tschirn, 656 So. 2d 1150, 1153 (Miss. 1995) (quoting Walker v. Brown, 501 So. 2d 358, 361 (Miss. 1987)). Although the court is unaware of a Mississippi case directly on point, other courts have held that "money can be the subjec......
  • Parker v. Byrd & Wiser
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi
    • March 29, 1996
    ...Conversion is the intent to exercise dominion or control over goods which is inconsistent with the true owner's right. Walker v. Brown, 501 So.2d 358, 361 (Miss.1987). 17. In the context of civil conspiracy, the Mississippi Supreme Court has stated that a conspiracy is "a combination of per......
  • Wallace v. United Mississippi Bank, 96-CA-00383-SCT.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • July 2, 1998
    ...Fin., 246 Miss. at 20-21, 149 So.2d at 23. See also PACCAR Fin. Corp. v. Howard, 615 So.2d 583, 588 (Miss. 1993). In Walker v. Brown, 501 So.2d 358, 361 (Miss.1987) this Court stated that "[c]onversion requires an intent to exercise dominion or control over goods which is inconsistent with ......
  • Cross Point Church v. Andrews (In re Andrews)
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Fifth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of Mississippi
    • October 20, 2016
    ...the tort of conversion even when she or he is unaware that someone else has superior ownerships rights in the property. Walker v. Brown , 501 So.2d 358, 361 (Miss. 1987). Indeed, the County Court noted, without expressly finding, that "Andrews may feel his intentional refusal to return the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT