Brenda Burson Perkins v. Star Transportation, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2009-CA-01714-COA
BRENDA BURSON PERKINS
APPELLANT
v.
STAR TRANSPORTATION, INC. AND
LORAINE W. CLARK
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEES
09/25/2009
HON. JOSEPH H. LOPER JR.
WEBSTER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
JOHN M. “MICKEY” MONTGOMERY
DOLTON W. MCALPIN
MARK NOLAN HALBERT
JAMES GRADY WYLY III
CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
JURY VERDICT IN FAVOR OF PERKINS
FOR $556,800
AFFIRMED: 04/12/2011
EN BANC.
GRIFFIS, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
The award of sanctions under Rule 37(c) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure
is the issue in this appeal. We find no reversible error and affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2.
On March 23, 2004, Brenda Burson Perkins was a passenger in a Toyota Camry
driven by Nancy Fulgham. They were driving west on Highway 82 in Webster County,
Mississippi. Fulgham stopped in the left-turn lane at a four-way stop at the intersection of
Highway 82 and Highway 15, in Mathiston, Mississippi. Highway 82 is a four-lane major
thoroughfare with a sizeable median separating the two westbound lanes and the two
eastbound lanes. When Fulgham turned south on Highway 15 and attempted to cross the two
eastbound lanes of Highway 82, her automobile was struck by an eighteen-wheeler that was
driven by Loraine W. Clark. The eighteen-wheeler was owned by Star Transportation, Inc.
¶3.
On March 8, 2007, both Fulgham and Perkins filed separate complaints against Clark
and Star Transportation. The same attorneys represented Perkins and Fulgham. Both
complaints asserted a claim for negligence and gross negligence. The claim for gross
negligence alleged that “the negligent acts of omission and commission on the part of Clark
. . . were so gross as to amount to wantonness and were such character as to evidence a
complete and total [dis]regard for and indifference to the safety of the traveling public, in
general, and of [Perkins], in particular.” Perkins’s complaint asked for both compensatory
and punitive damages.
¶4.
On April 12, 2007, Clark and Star Transportation, through joint counsel, filed an
answer to Perkins’s complaint. Their answer admitted that the accident occurred but denied
liability, either in general or on the grounds of insufficient information. Their answer
included twenty-two affirmative defenses.
Clark and Star Transportation alleged the
following defenses:
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
And now further answering, the Defendants aver that the accident in question
was not due to any negligent fault on the part of Defendants, but was caused
in whole or in part through the proximate fault, strict fault, negligence or want
2
of care of Nancy Fulgham and/or Brenda Person Perkins in the following, but
not exclusive respects:
a.
Failing to maintain a proper lookout;
b.
Failing to use due care;
c.
Failing to maintain proper control over his vehicle;
d.
Acting in a careless or reckless manner; and
e.
Other acts of negligence that will be shown at the trial of this
matter.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
And now further answering, the Defendants aver in the alternative, and only
in the event that it is shown that there is any fault or negligence on the part of
Defendants, all of which is denied, or that such negligence is the cause of any
injury or loss to the Plaintiffs (which is also at all times denied), then in that
event, Defendants affirmatively aver that Nancy Fulgham and/or Brenda
Burson Perkins’s own contributory fault or negligence operates as a complete
bar, or alternatively in the mitigation of any damages which might otherwise
be true.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendants aver that if the subject accident was caused by any acts or
omissions on the part of the answering Defendants, which is expressly denied,
such acts or omissions were the result of sudden emergency and/or hazard
created by Nancy Fulgham and/or Brenda Burson Perkins, and/or others for
whom the answering Defendants are not liable.
¶5.
On July 31, 2007, Perkins served requests for admissions on Clark and Star
Transportation. Clark responded on September 14, 2007, as follows:
a.
Request for Admission No. 9: Do you admit or deny that you caused
the collision that occurred between Plaintiff Nancy Fulgham and
Defendants Loraine W. Clark and Star Transportation, Inc. on March
23, 2004?
3
Response to Request for Admission No. 9: Denied
b.
Request for Admission No. 12: Do you admit or deny that you were
driving in excess of the posted, legal speed limit at the time of the
collision on March 23, 2004?
Response to Request for Admission No. 12: Denied
c.
Request for Admission No. 17: Do you admit or deny that you failed
to stop at the four-way stop located at the intersection of U.S. Highway
82 and MS Highway 15, the location of the subject collision?
Response to Request for Admission No. 17: Admitted
d.
Request for Admission No. 18: Do you admit or deny that you failed
to yield the right-of-way to the Plaintiffs’ vehicle at the four-way stop
located at the intersection of U.S. Highway 82 and MS Highway 15, the
location of the subject collision?
Response to Request for Admission No. 18: Denied
Star Transportation also responded as follows:
a.
Request for Admission No. 8: Do you admit or deny that the defendant
caused the collision that occurred between Plaintiff Nancy Fulgham and
Defendants Loraine W. Clark and Star Transportation, Inc. on March
23, 2004?
Response to Request for Admission No. 8: Denied
b.
Request for Admission No. 11: Do you admit or deny that Defendant,
Loraine W. Clark, was driving in excess of the posted, legal speed limit
at the time of the collision on March 23, 2004?
Response to Request for Admission No. 11: Denied
c.
Request for Admission No. 15: Do you admit or deny that Defendant,
Loraine W. Clark, failed to stop at the four-way stop located at the
intersection of U.S. Highway 82 and MS Highway 15, the location of
the subject collision?
4
Response to Request for Admission No. 15: Admitted
d.
Request for Admission No. 17: Do you admit or deny that Defendant,
Loraine W. Clark, failed to yield the right-of-way to the Plaintiffs’
vehicle at the four-way stop located at the intersection of U.S. Highway
82 and MS Highway 15, the location of the subject collision?
Response to Request for Admission No. 17: Denied
¶6.
On December 12, 2007, counsel for Clark and Star Transportation took the deposition
of Nancy Fulgham. In that deposition, Fulgham testified:
A.
. . . We were traveling west on 82. And when we got to Mathiston
there’s a four-way stop. We were going to cross. We came to a stop,
and I was fixing to cross, and that’s when I got hit.
Q.
Okay, you were taking a left on 15 there to go to Canton?
A.
Yeah. I was taking a left on 15.
Q.
Okay, you came to a full stop?
A.
I did.
Q.
As you approached that intersection, can you tell me what you
remember seeing as far as other cars or trucks that were at the
intersection or approaching the intersection?
A.
There was a car sitting on 82 facing east. And when I pulled up there,
I got there a little bit before she did, but a lot of those cars take off any
way. So I proceeded to cross, and I kept saying, please don’t go.
Please don’t go. And I was focused on her vehicle. And then when I
got about midways through is when Ms. Clark hit me.
(Emphasis added). According to Perkins’s deposition testimony, the vehicle approaching the
intersection in the outside lane of the eastbound lanes of Highway 82 was a white pickup
truck. Fulgham concentrated on that vehicle. Fulgham’s testimony revealed that she
5
believed that the white pickup truck presented a danger, and she was watching it carefully
as she proceeded across the highway. Driving her eighteen-wheeler, Clark was approaching
the intersection in the innermost eastbound lane of Highway 82. It was between 12:00 and
12:30 p.m. The weather was clear. Fulgham had an unobstructed view of Highway 82 to the
west for an extended distance. Fulgham’s deposition testimony indicated that she never saw
Clark approaching until the instant before impact when she screamed, “[o]h, s—!.” In her
own deposition testimony, Perkins confirmed Fulgham’s version of events.
¶7.
On December 13, 2007, counsel for Perkins took Clark’s deposition.
In that
deposition, Clark testified that she did not know whether she stopped at the stop sign. She
thought that Fulgham’s car did not come to a complete stop but made a rolling stop.
¶8.
Perkins’s counsel served the plaintiff’s designation of expert witnesses, and G.L.
Rhoades was designated to testify as to fault or liability. The designation revealed that
Rhoades was expected to testify as an accident-reconstruction expert. Rhoades would opine
that, at the time of the accident, Clark ignored the traffic control devices, did not stop at the
stop sign, was speeding at the time of the accident, did not apply her brakes before the
collision, failed to apply the full braking capacity, and was traveling at approximately fiftyfive miles per hour at the time of impact. Rhoades would also testify that Clark failed to use
the proper braking capacity of the tractor-trailer, and the braking capacity was less than
twenty-four percent at the time of the accident. Rhoades was also designated to testify that
Star Transportation failed to maintain a proper safety program in accordance with the
Department of Transportation’s regulations and standard industry safety practices.
6
¶9.
Thereafter, Star Transportation obtained the GPS and on-board computer data from
its truck that Clark was driving at the time of the accident. This information revealed Clark
had been mistaken about her speed at the time of the collision. As a result, on September 18,
2008, counsel for Clark and Star Transportation supplemented their discovery responses and
provided Perkins’s counsel with documents “downloaded from the onboard computer(s) in
Loraine Clark’s truck following the accident.” This information established that the tractortrailer Clark was driving was actually traveling fifty-two miles per hour two seconds before
the accident and 48.5 miles per hour one second before the accident.
¶10.
On November 20, 2008, counsel for Perkins took the Rule 30(b)(6 ) 1 deposition of
Star Transportation’s corporate representative, Ronnie Holland. Holland testified about the
information from the onboard computer in Clark’s truck and its speed immediately before
the accident. Holland testified that Clark was driving fifty-two miles per hour two seconds
before the collision. The posted speed limit on Highway 82 was sixty-five miles per hour.
However, as a driver such as Clark approached the intersection of Highway 82 and Highway
15, the speed limit decreased in steps from sixty-five miles per hour to fifty-five miles per
hour, then to forty-five miles per hour, and finally to thirty-five miles per hour. The posted
speed limit immediately prior to arriving at the intersection was thirty-five miles per hour.
Star Transportation’s expert in accident reconstruction, Dr. Thomas Talbot, also conceded
that Clark had been speeding immediately before the collision.
1
M.R.C.P. 30(b)(6).
7
¶11.
On December 15, 2008, Perkins’s counsel served a notice of supplemental designation
of expert witnesses, and Roger C. Allen was designated to testify as to liability. The
designation revealed that Allen was expected to testify as an expert in the transportation
industry and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. According to the opinion
provided with the designation, Allen was prepared to testify that Clark and Star
Transportation were responsible for the accident and had violated several federal regulations.
Allen opined that, after a review of the onboard computer logs, Clark had violated the hours
of service regulations and had failed to keep a current log book, as required by the federal
regulations. Allen also opined that Star Transportation should have been aware of such
violation of these regulations.
Allen was prepared to testify that Clark and/or Star
Transportation had at least seven violations of the federal regulations. Allen’s conclusion
was the actions of Clark and Star Transportation were “negligent and most likely grossly
negligent.” Allen provided a supplemental report on January 23, 2009.
¶12.
On March 27, 2009, Clark and Star Transportation filed a motion in limine and a
motion to strike Rhoades’s expert opinions. Clark and Star Transportation also filed a
motion in limine and a motion to strike Allen’s expert opinions concerning monitoring
standards, hours of service violations, and brake-inspection compliance.
¶13.
On March 27, 2009, Clark and Star Transportation filed a motion for partial summary
judgment and asked the circuit court to dismiss Perkins’s claim for punitive damages and
additional claims raised in her amended complaint.
¶14.
After a hearing on the motions, the circuit court executed, on June 10, 2009, an
8
opinion and order that granted the motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed
Perkins’s claim for punitive damages. The circuit court also dismissed the claims that
Perkins had raised in her amended complaint.
The circuit court’s order specifically
mentioned that Clark and Star Transportation had “concede[d] that Perkins is entitled to
receive some amount of compensatory damages from them.”
¶15.
On June 16, 2009, the trial began. The transcript indicates the jury was selected,
“called to the jury box[,] and given preliminary instructions by the court. Then the jury was
sent to the jury room.” The circuit court then considered preliminary motions, which
included a motion for reconsideration of both the motion in limine and the motion for partial
summary judgment.
¶16.
The circuit court declined to change its position regarding punitive damages and
denied the motion for reconsideration. During the argument on the motions, the following
exchange occurred:
By the Court:
. . . I have kind of been baffled from the get go after
reading everything I did about why y’all are still
contending that there is some issue concerning liability.
But that is your right.
By defense counsel: Well, we could probably shorten this trial right now.
Your Honor, we didn’t admit liability, and we haven’t
although we have admitted we ran through the stop sign
because there was the specter of punitive damages out
there. Now once that order came down on Thursday, we
are willing to admit liability subject to having the right
to prove that there is some apportionment to be made as
to fault on the accident.
(Emphasis added). After additional argument on other matters, counsel for Clark and Star
9
Transportation stated: “The last thing is that I would appreciate a short period of time to meet
with my clients about this admission of liability because I appreciate what the court said.”
After a recess, counsel announced to the court: “Your Honor, my clients agree to admit the
liability without any reservation.” Then another lengthy discussion was held as to how this
confession of liability would affect Perkins’s presentation of evidence.
¶17.
In his opening statement, counsel for Clark and Star Transportation admitted that
Clark ran the stop sign and stated that the trial was about Perkins’s damages. Perkins then
called Jeremy Flora and Elizabeth Peacock to testify as eyewitnesses. Perkins also called
Trooper Jason White, who had responded to the accident.
¶18.
The next morning, counsel for Clark and Star Transportation asked the circuit court
to limit Perkins’s case-in-chief due to the fact that they had admitted liability. Perkins had
intended to bring other witnesses to testify as to liability. When the circuit court had the jury
brought into the courtroom, the circuit court made the following announcement:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We were taking up some more
preliminary matters before we had you brought back out, and I want to make
sure you understand. At this point, the Defendants, Star Transportation and
Loraine Clark, are admitting that they are at fault in this accident. So I have
ruled that no other testimony is necessary as to what happened, what occurred
at the accident because they are admitting that they are at fault. So we are
moving into damages which . . . you will decide at the end of the trial what
type of compensation Ms. Perkins is . . . entitled to receive as a result of this
accident. They are confessing though that they are liable. So the testimony
from this point forward will be testimony concerning the damage phase where
you decide after all the testimony and evidence has been presented . . . what
type of compensation you believe that Ms. [Perkins] is entitled to. But I just
wanted to explain that so you wouldn’t be wondering why we didn’t have
other testimony about the accident. But since they have again conceded that
they are at fault, [there] is no point in having any more testimony on that issue.
10
On the fourth day of the trial, counsel for Perkins informed the circuit court that he would
like to call Clark and question her regarding her speed, the weight of her truck, the impact,
her admissions, and “questions about prior inconsistent statements that would go to
credibility.” According to counsel for Perkins, those questions were “designed to go to
damages.” Counsel for the defendants argued that such questions were inappropriate in light
of their admission of fault. After significant debate that resulted in Perkins being allowed
to proffer Star Transportation’s and Clark’s responses to her requests for admissions, Star
Transportation and Clark specifically offered to stipulate to the jury that they were one
hundred percent at fault for the accident with no apportionment to Fulgham. The circuit
court stated, “Well, I don’t know if they will accept a stipulation.” Counsel for Perkins
confirmed the circuit court’s suspicion and said, “[w]e are not stipulating.”
¶19.
Immediately before calling Clark, counsel for Perkins requested that the circuit court
allow him to ask Clark whether she had caused or contributed to the cause “of the injuries
of the Plaintiff, Brenda Perkins.” The following exchange then transpired:
BY THE COURT: I will allow you to ask if she concedes that Ms. Perkins
was injured as a result of the accident. That’s the only question that needs to
be asked.
COUNSEL FOR PERKINS: Judge, we have put on three days of proof that
she has been injured. We know that. It’s just who caused it.
COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS: Then why ask it?
COUNSEL FOR PERKINS: Because of causation, because she - COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS: - - No, because you want to do
something else with this, which is what - -
11
COUNSEL FOR PERKINS: - - No, I don’t.
BY THE COURT: Well, I have made my ruling.
Perkins then called Clark as a witness, and she testified as follows:
Q.
On March 23rd, 2004, were you employed as a truck driver for Star
Transportation around 12:30?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Okay, and you were involved in an automobile accident - - I mean a
tractor trailer accident and an automobile accident on Highway 82 and
Highway 15; is that correct?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Okay, I want to ask you one question. Do you admit or deny that on
March 23rd, 2004, that you were negligent in the operation of the
tractor[-]trailer in an - - that resulted in a crash between your truck and
Nancy Fulgham where Brenda Perkins was a passenger? Do you admit
or deny that you were negligent in causing this collision?
A.
Yes.
Q.
What is your answer? Do you admit it or do you deny it?
A.
I admit it.
Perkins then called Holland, Star Transportation’s corporate representative, to testify:
Q.
Do you as the representative of Star Transportation admit or deny that
on March 23rd, 2004, at the time of the collision that the Defendant,
Loraine Clark, was a truck driver and was acting in the course and
scope of her employment with your company, the Defendant, Star
Transportation?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And do you admit that Star Transportation would be vicariously liable
for any damages because of the negligence of Mrs. Clark?
12
A.
Yes.
....
Q.
A.
¶20.
Does Star Transportation admit liability in this case?
Yes.
At the conclusion of the trial, the jury awarded Perkins $556,800 in damages. On
June 23, 2009, the circuit court entered the final judgment.2
¶21.
On July 2, 2009, Perkins served Clark and Star Transportation with her motion for
imposition of sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(c) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure.
Perkins asserted that Clark and Star Transportation had failed to admit the truth of the
matters requested under Mississippi Rule of Civile Procedure 36. As a result, Perkins
claimed she was obligated to prove liability and had to employ Rhoades and Allen as expert
witnesses. In addition, Perkins claimed she had incurred attorneys’ fees and expenses, along
with the expert witness fees, which would not have been incurred had Clark and Star
Transportation properly responded to the Rule 36 requests for admission. Perkins asked the
circuit court to award sanctions under Rule 37(c) in the amount of $192,000.
¶22.
On September 25, 2009, the circuit court entered an opinion and order that denied the
motion. In the opinion, the circuit court considered Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure 11
and 37(c), along with Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-55-5 (Rev. 2002)(the
2
Clark and Star Transportation have not appealed the judgment that awarded
compensatory damages. Perkins has not appealed the order that granted the motion in limine
to exclude expert witness testimony or the partial summary judgment that dismissed
Perkins’s claim of gross negligence. None of these issues are before this Court.
13
Mississippi Litigation Accountability Act). The circuit court then ruled:
This court, having considered this matter finds that neither the testimony of G.
L. Rhoades, nor Roger Allen was necessary in order for the plaintiff to prove
that the defendants were at fault in causing the accident that occurred on or
about March 23, 2004, even if the defendants had not conceded partial liability
prior to trial, and total liability at trial. Also, while the defendants’ theory that
Nancy Fulgham was partially at fault in causing the accident was unlikely to
be successful, that theory was not a frivolous defense. Additionally, because
the defendants confessed liability, the plaintiff did not offer “proof” on the
subject of liability. Accordingly, this court finds that the Plaintiff’s Motion for
Imposition of Sanctions against Star Transportation, Inc. and Loraine W. Clark
pursuant to Rule 37(c) M.R.C.P., that was filed by the Plaintiff, Brenda Burson
Perkins, on July 2, 2009, should be denied.
It is from this order that Perkins now appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶23.
“The trial court is vested with considerable discretion in its authority to award
sanctions for discovery abuses.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 37 So. 3d 87, 90
(¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). We will reverse the circuit court’s decision if it abused its
discretion. Id. “We will affirm a trial court’s decision unless we have a ‘definite and firm
conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it
reached upon the weighing of relevant factors.’” Id. (quoting Jones v. Jones, 995 So. 2d 706,
711 (¶13) (Miss. 2008)).
ANALYSIS
¶24.
Perkins framed the issue on appeal as “whether or not the trial court should have
entered an order granting to Plaintiff Brenda Burson Perkins her attorney’s fees, witness fees,
and costs as sanctions against Defendants Star Transportation, Inc. and Loraine W. Clark
14
pursuant to Rule 37(c), M.R.C.P., as set out in the Plaintiff’s Motion for Imposition of
Sanctions.” Thus, we consider whether it was an abuse of discretion for the circuit court to
deny the motion for sanctions under Rule 37(c).3
¶25.
Our analysis ends when we determine that the circuit court was correct to determine
that the allocation of fault was a viable issue for trial. The circuit court correctly concluded
that, “while the defendants’ theory that Nancy Fulgham was partially at fault in causing the
accident was unlikely to be successful, that theory was not a frivolous defense.”
¶26.
Rule 37(c) provides:
If a party fails to admit . . . the truth of any matter as requested under Rule 36,
and if the party requesting the admissions thereafter proves the . . . truth of the
matter, he may apply to the court for an order requiring the other party to pay
him the reasonable expenses incurred in making that proof, including
reasonable attorney's fees. The court shall make the order unless it finds that
(1) the request was held objectionable under Rule 36(a), or (2) the admission
sought was of no substantial importance, or (3) the party failing to admit had
[a] reasonable ground to believe that he might prevail on the matter, or (4)
there was other good reason for the failure to admit.
(Emphasis added). When we consider Fulgham’s fault or negligence would be considered
to apportion damages under Mississippi Code Annotated section 85-5-7 (Supp. 2010), we
must also find that the circuit court was correct to rule that Clark and Star Transportation, as
“the part[ies] failing to admit,” indeed “had [a] reasonable ground to believe that he might
prevail on the matter, or . . . there was other good reason for the failure to admit.”
3
The issue as to whether Perkins was entitled to sanctions under Rule 11 of the
Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure or the Mississippi Litigation Accountability Act was
cited in Perkins brief. However, Perkins does not argue that the circuit court was in error for
not awarding sanctions under Rule 11 or Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-55-5.
15
¶27.
Fulgham’s complaint asserted claims for negligence and gross negligence. Clark and
Star Transportation denied that they were negligent or grossly negligent and asserted
affirmative defenses that the accident was caused in whole or in part by the negligence of
Fulgham.
¶28.
During discovery, Perkins served requests for admission that asked Clark and Star
Transportation to admit to the claim of negligence. They refused. Instead, they specifically
denied that: Clark had caused the accident; Clark was driving in excess of the posted speed
limit; and Clark failed to yield the right-of-way to the vehicle driven by Fulgham. Clark did,
however, admit that she “failed to stop at the four-way stop.” Based on this response, the
question of Clark and Star Transportation’s negligence was an issue to be tried by the jury.
¶29.
Perkins prepared to present evidence that would establish, by a preponderance of the
evidence, the elements of negligence: (1) duty, (2) breach of duty, (3) causation, and (4)
damages. Fisher v. Deer 942 So. 2d 217, 219 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). In routine caraccident cases, the elements of duty, breach of duty, and causation are proven by
eyewitnesses and expert witnesses.4 It is clear from the circuit court’s order that the court
did not believe it was necessary for Perkins to call expert witnesses to establish Clark and
Star Transportation’s negligence. In part, this was due to the earlier litigation brought by
Fulgham.
4
See, e.g., City of Jackson v. Harris, 44 So. 3d 927, 930 (Miss. 2010); Utz v. Running
& Rolling Trucking, Inc., 32 So. 3d 450, 469 (¶53) (Miss. 2010); Denham v. Holmes ex rel.
Holmes, 2008-CA-01933-COA, 2010 WL 1037494, *2-3 (¶¶10-14) (Miss. Ct. App. Mar.
23, 2010).
16
¶30.
Perkins’s counsel retained two expert witnesses. Rhoades was retained to testify as
an accident reconstructionist. Allen was retained to testify as a transportation expert. Their
testimonies were to be offered by the plaintiff to establish duty, breach of duty, and
causation, and was offered to establish gross negligence.
¶31.
Clark and Star Transportation’s answers raised Fulgham’s contributory negligence and
their right to allocation of fault. The triable issues included not only the negligence of Clark
and Star Transportation but also the negligence of Fulgham. The circuit court recognized
that the issue of whether Fulgham was partially at fault was an issue to be tried regardless
of the fact that Clark and Star Transportation denied or conceded their negligence.
¶32.
The allocation of fault was a proper issue for the jury to consider a relevant issue for
the parties to offer evidence. Perkins was required to offer evidence of negligent conduct so
the jury could allocate fault between the potential wrong doers, Fulgham, Clark, and Star
Transportation.
Therefore, we must conclude that at the time that Clark and Star
Transportation filed their responses to Perkins’s requests for admissions, they had reasonable
grounds to conclude that Fulgham’s negligence in failing to see Clark’s tractor-trailer
approaching the intersection before Fulgham proceeded across the eastbound lanes of
Highway 82 contributed, at least in part, to the collision. Clark and Star Transportation claim
that, under the circumstances, and pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 63-3-805
(Rev. 2004), Fulgham had a duty, before crossing Highway 82, to yield the right-of-way to
a vehicle approaching the intersection so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. It is true
that Clark and Star Transportation did not file a motion to correct or supplement their
17
responses to the requests for admissions. However, Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure
37(c) provides no sanction for failure to supplement. Moreover, it appears that, as soon as
Star Transportation obtained the GPS and onboard computer data, Star Transportation
provided Perkins with that information.
Furthermore, on November 30, 2008, Star
Transportation’s Rule 30(b)(6) representative, Holland, was deposed. Holland acknowledged
that Clark was driving fifty-two miles per hour two seconds before the impact. Clark and
Star Transportation’s designated expert, Dr. Talbot, admitted that Clark had been speeding
and that she caused the accident. We find that circuit court was correct to recognize that
Fulgham’s contributory negligence was indeed a triable issue for the jury. Fulgham’s fault
or negligence would be considered to apportion damages under Mississippi Code Annotated
section 85-5-7 (Supp. 2010).
¶33.
As a result, we find that the circuit court was within its discretion to find that “the
party failing to admit had [a] reasonable ground to believe that he might prevail on the
matter, or . . . there was other good reason for the failure to admit.” For this reason, we
affirm the circuit court’s judgment denying the motion for attorneys’ fees and sanctions.
¶34. THE JUDGMENT OF THE WEBSTER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS
AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE
APPELLANT.
BARNES, ROBERTS, CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR. IRVING,
P.J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY LEE, C.J.,
AND ISHEE, J. MYERS, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
IRVING, P.J., DISSENTING:
¶35.
The issue presented in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant
18
sanctions because of Loraine Clark and Star Transportation’s 5 refusal to make a timely
admission of negligence after Clark ran a stop sign and drove her eighteen-wheel tractor
trailer into Nancy Fulgham’s vehicle in which Brenda Burson Perkins was riding as a
passenger.
¶36.
The majority finds that the trial court correctly determined that Clark and Star
Transportation’s reason for not admitting liability—that Fulgham was guilty of contributory
negligence—was not a frivolous defense; therefore, the trial court was not obligated to grant
sanctions because Clark and Star Transportation “had reasonable ground to believe that
[they] might prevail on the matter, or there was other good reason for [their] failure to admit
[negligence].” M.R.C.P. 37(c). As I will explain later, there is no factual basis in the record
to support this finding; therefore, any analysis based on this premise is flawed. It is clear to
me that the circuit court abused its discretion when it refused to sanction Clark and Star
Transportation in at least some amount as reimbursement for Perkins’s expenses and
attorneys’ fees incurred in proving that Clark’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of
Perkins’s injuries. Unfortunately, the majority sanctions (pun intended), rather than rectifies,
that abuse. I would reverse and remand this case to the circuit judge to enter an appropriate
award of sanctions under Rule 37(c).
¶37.
The accident, out of which today’s issue arose, occurred on March 23, 2004. Almost
three years later, on March 8, 2007, Perkins filed separate suits against Clark and Star
5
The tractor trailer was owned by Star Transportation, Inc., which was Clark’s
employer.
19
Transportation. On July 31, 2007, Perkins served twenty-two requests for admission on
Clark. Five of those requests and Clark’s responses to them are relevant to our inquiry.
Those requests and responses are:
(a)
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Do you admit or deny that you
caused the collision that occurred between Plaintiff Nancy Fulgham and
Defendants Loraine W. Clark and Star Transportation, Inc. on March
23, 2004?
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9: Denied.
(b)
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Do you admit or deny that
you were driving in excess of the posted, legal speed limit at the time
of the collision on March 23, 2004?
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12: Denied.
(c)
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Do you admit or deny that
you failed to stop at the four-way stop located at the intersection of U.S.
Highway 82 and MS Highway 15, the location of the subject collision?
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 17: Admitted.
(d)
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: Do you admit or deny that
you failed to yield the right-of-way to the Plaintiffs’ vehicle at the fourway stop located at the intersection of U.S. Highway 82 and MS
Highway 15, the location of the subject collision?
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 18: Denied.
(e)
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: Do you admit or deny that
you operated her [sic] vehicle in a willful or wanton disregard for the
safety of the traveling public at the intersection of U.S. Highway 82 and
M.S. [sic] Highway 15, the location of the subject collision?
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 19: Denied.
¶38.
Perkins also served similar requests for admission on Star Transportation. The
20
requests and Star Transportation’s responses are:
(a)
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Do you admit or deny that the
defendant caused the collision that occurred between Plaintiff Nancy
Fulgham and Defendants Loraine W. Clark and Star Transportation,
Inc. on March 23, 2004?
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8: Denied.
(b)
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Do you admit or deny that
Defendant, Loraine W. Clark, was driving in excess of the posted, legal
speed limit at the time of the collision on March 23, 2004?
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11: Denied.
(c)
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Do you admit or deny that
Defendant, Loraine W. Clark, failed to stop at the four-way stop located
at the intersection of U.S. Highway 82 and MS Highway 15, the
location of the subject collision?
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15: Admitted.
(d)
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Do you admit or deny that
Defendant, Loraine W. Clark, failed to yield the right-of-way to the
Plaintiffs’ vehicle at the four-way stop located at the intersection of
U.S. Highway 82 and MS Highway 15, the location of the subject
collision?
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 17: Denied.
(e)
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: Do you admit or deny that
defendant, Loraine W. Clark, operated her vehicle in a willful or
wanton disregard for the safety of the traveling public at the
intersection of U.S. Highway 82 and M.S. [sic] Highway 15, the
location of the subject accident?
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 18: Denied.
¶39.
Rule 37(c) was promulgated to ensure that a party, who is treated as was Perkins here,
can recover attorneys’ fees and expenses for having to prove a fact that should have been
21
admitted by the opposing party. Rule 37(c) provides:
If a party fails to admit . . . the truth of any matter as requested under Rule 36,
and if the party requesting the admissions thereafter proves the . . . the truth of
the matter, he may apply to the court for an order requiring the other party to
pay him the reasonable expenses incurred in making that proof, including
reasonable attorney’s fees. The court shall make the order unless it finds that
(1) the request was held objectionable under Rule 36(a), or (2) the admission
sought was of no substantial importance, or (3) the party failing to admit had
reasonable ground to believe that he might prevail on the matter, or (4) there
was other good reason for the failure to admit.
(Emphasis added).
¶40.
In denying Perkins’s motion for sanctions with respect to reimbursement for expenses,
the circuit court stated:
Because the defendants conceded partial liability prior to trial and total
liability at the commencement of trial, the plaintiff was not required to prove
that Clark was speeding, failed to yield the right-of-way, or that Clark and Star
Transportation caused the accident. Additionally, given the lay testimony that
was available concerning the accident, this court finds that the expert opinions
of neither G.L. Rhoades nor Roger Allen would have been necessary to
establish fault, even if the defendants had not conceded liability prior to trial.
Thus, this court finds that the plaintiff is not entitled to receive reimbursement,
by way of sanctions, for the money that she expended in hiring expert
witnesses.
¶41.
With respect to the denial of attorneys’ fees, the circuit court stated:
This court has been unable to find any decisions from the appellate courts of
this state that offer any guidance on when attorney[s’] fees, as sanctions,
should be awarded pursuant to M.R.C.P. 37(c). Thus this court has looked to
the decisions as to when attorney[s’] fees should be awarded as sanctions
pursuant to M.R.C.P. 11 and the Litigation Accountability Act of 1988 [Miss.
Code Ann. § 11-55-1 (Rev. 2002)].
Courts should award sanctions by way of awarding attorney[s’] fees if the
court finds that a claim or defense was brought “without substantial
justification.” Mississippi Code Annotated § 11-55-5(1) [(Rev. 2002)].
22
“‘Without substantial justification,’ when used with reference to any action,
claim, defense, or appeal, including without limitation any motion, means that
it is frivolous, groundless in fact or in law, or vexatious, as determined by the
court.” Mississippi Code Annotated § 11-55-3(a) [(Rev. 2002)]. Similarly,
Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure 11(b) provides that:
If any party files a motion or pleading which, in the opinion of
the court, is frivolous or is filed for the purpose of harassment
or delay, the court may order such a party, or his attorney, or
both, to pay the opposing party or parties the reasonable
expenses incurred by such other parties and by their attorneys,
including reasonable attorney[s’] fees.
M.R.C.P. 11(b). A claim is considered frivolous under both the statute and
Rule 11 “only when, objectively speaking, the pleader or movant has no hope
of success.” Scruggs v. Saterfiel, 693 So. 2d 924, 927 (Miss. 1997); Leaf River
Forest Prod[.], Inc. v. Deakle, 661 So. 2d 188, 197 (Miss. 1995); Stevens v.
Lake, 615 So. 2d 1177, 1184 (Miss. 1993) “Thought [sic] a case may be weak
or ‘light-headed,’ that is not sufficient to label it frivolous.” Leaf River[, 661
So. 2d] at 195.
Here, the defendants admitted, well in advance of trial, that Clark was
speeding and ran the stop sign/red light, and was partially at fault in causing
the accident. The only thing they did not concede, prior to the day of trial, was
that Fulgham played no role in causing the accident. Although, at trial this
court was of the opinion that Fulgham could not be found to be even partially
liable for causing the accident, the defendant[s’] theory to the contrary could
in no way be considered as frivolous [footnote omitted]. It may have been a
“weak” or “light headed” theory, but it certainly was not frivolous.
Additionally, as noted in the previous section of this opinion, [the] plaintiff
was never required to offer “proof” on the issue of liability. For these reasons,
this court finds that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover attorney[s’] fees from
the defendants.
¶42.
I begin my analysis by pointing out the fallacy in the legal premises that somehow
Fulgham could be held partially liable for causing the accident, thereby providing
justification for Clark’s and Star Transportation’s refusal to admit liability from the
beginning of this litigation. As stated, Perkins was riding as a passenger in Fulgham’s
23
vehicle, which, immediately prior to the accident, was headed west on Highway 82.
Highway 82 is a four-lane major thoroughfare with a sizeable median separating the two
westbound lanes and the two eastbound lanes. The accident occurred in the inner eastbound
lane of Highway 82 where it and Mississippi Highway15 intersect. Fulgham had brought her
car to a stop at the four-way stop sign, that is posted at the inner westbound lane of Highway
82, before executing a left turn to travel onto Highway 15 South. After stopping at the fourway stop sign, Fulgham executed the left turn and traveled across the median 6 that divides
the westbound and eastbound lanes of Highway 82. She faced no other stop sign. However,
traffic traveling east on Highway 82, as was Clark, is required to stop at the four-way stop
sign at the intersection of Highway 82 and Highway 15. Thus, it is clear that Fulgham had
the right-of-way and was not required to yield to eastbound traffic on Highway 82, as all of
this traffic was required to stop at the four-way stop sign for eastbound traffic. To contend
that Fulgham was partially responsible for the accident because she did not see Clark’s
tractor trailer, which was required to stop, is tantamount to saying (1) that Clark had a right
to run the stop sign, (2) that Fulgham should have known that Clark had that right and would
exercise it, and (3) that Fulgham was negligent for not yielding the right-of-way to Clark in
order to let Clark run the stop sign. Such reasoning is not undergirded by either our statutory
or decisional law with respect to duties owed by drivers under the factual scenario presented
here.
6
The median at that point is essentially a paved lead-in to Highway 15 South from
the westbound lanes of Highway 82.
24
¶43.
Next, I will address a point that the majority does not dwell on: whether Perkins
proved at trial that Clark’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident as
required by Rule 37(c) before expenses and attorneys’ fees are allowed. I begin this
discussion by pointing out that after the jury had been selected, it was sent to the jury room
so that the circuit judge could resolve some pending motions. After some prodding by the
circuit judge, Clark and Star Transportation first admitted partial liability, and toward the end
of the proceedings, while the jury was still out, Clark and Star Transportation finally
admitted total liability, without reservations. Thereafter, Perkins called three witnesses,
Jeremy Flora, Elizabeth Peacock, and Trooper Jason White. Flora and Peacock testified that
Clark ran the stop sign and struck Fulgham’s vehicle. On the second day of the trial, the
circuit judge orally instructed the jury as follows:
At this point the defendants, Star Transportation and Loraine Clark, are
admitting that they are at fault in this accident. So I have ruled that no other
testimony is necessary as to what happened, what occurred at the accident
because they are admitting that they are at fault. . . . They are confessing[,]
though[,] that they are liable.
¶44.
On the fourth day of the trial, Perkins attempted to call Clark to the witness stand.
Counsel for Clark and Star Transportation inquired as to the purpose. A long discussion
ensued between the court and Perkins’s counsel regarding how Clark’s testimony did or did
not relate to damages, concluding with this exchange:
DEFENSE COUNSEL:
Your honor, just for clarification purposes;
as I understand it, the other day Your
Honor announced to the court or to the
jury on the record that we admitted
liability. So you are ruling now -- I’m not
25
saying it is different, but your ruling is to
allow them to ask Ms. Clark one question
about whether she admits liability. Is that
correct?
THE COURT:
Yes, because, you know, I think there [sic]
might be appropriate to have proof that
there was an issue. I mean you know, I
have advised them of that, but I still think
-- and they will be --
DEFENSE COUNSEL:
-- can we not provide the Court a written
stipulation?
THE COURT:
Well, I don’t know if they will accept a
stipulation --
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:
-- We are not stipulating.
THE COURT:
So you know, you can call and ask her if
she admits she is at, that they were at fault.
DEFENSE COUNSEL:
Okay, for that one question. That’s what
the Court will allow?
THE COURT:
Correct.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL:
May I ask her when she decided to make
that admission?
THE COURT:
No, that is not relevant.
Thereafter, Perkins called Ronnie Holland, Star Transportation’s corporate representative,
who testified as follows:
Q.
Do you as the representative of Star Transportation admit or deny that
on March 23rd, 2004, at the time of the collision that the Defendant,
Loraine Clark, was a truck driver and was acting in the course and
scope of her employment with your company, the Defendant, Star
Transportation?
26
A.
Yes.
Q.
And do you admit that Star Transportation would be vicariously liable
for any damages because of the negligence of Mrs. Clark?
A.
Yes.
****
Q.
Does Star Transportation admit liability in this case?
A.
Yes.
Clark was the next witness to be called by Perkins, and Clark testified as follows:
Q
On March 23rd, 2004, were you employed as a truck driver for Star
Transportation around 12:30?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Okay, and you were involved in an automobile accident -- I mean a
tractor-trailer accident and an automobile accident on Highway 82 and
Highway 15; is that correct?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Do you admit or deny that on March 23, 2004, that you were negligent
in the operation of the tractor trailer in an -- that resulted in a crash
between your truck and Nancy Fulgham where Brenda Perkins was a
passenger? Do you admit or deny that you were negligent in causing
this collision?
A.
Yes.
Q.
What is your answer? Do you admit it or do you deny it?
A.
I admit it.
¶45. Based on the testimonies of Flora, Peacock, Clark, and Holland, there can be little
27
doubt that Perkins proved liability at trial. There also can be little doubt that when the trial
commenced, Clark and Star Transportation had not admitted liability. I know of no law that
requires a plaintiff to accept a stipulation of liability once a trial has begun so as to allow a
non-admitting party under Rule 37(c) off the hook for not having admitted a matter that the
party should have admitted before commencement of the trial. When Clark and Star
Transportation finally admitted liability, it was too late to avoid sanctions under Rule 37(c).
¶46. In Peralta v. Durham, 133 S.W.3d 339 (Tex. App. 2004), the Court of Appeals of
Texas reviewed a decision of a trial judge who had granted sanctions in a case that is
factually analogous to the facts here. There, Lauren Peralta and Charles Durham were
involved in an accident. Id. at 340. Durham filed suit against Peralta and asked her to admit
certain matters, including that she caused the accident. Id. Peralta made no objection, and
denied each of the requests until immediately before trial, at which time she stipulated to
liability. Id. After a jury had returned a verdict for compensatory damages against Peralta,
Durham filed a motion for expenses under rule 215.4(b) of the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure, which is comparable to our Rule 37(c), for having to prove that Peralta caused
the accident. Id. Peralta argued that “she had a right to make Durham prove his case and
because he was never forced to prove liability at trial, he [was] not entitled to expenses.” Id.
at 341. The trial court granted sanctions. Id. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial
court, stating:
Peralta’s reading of rule 215.4(b) is too limited and would defeat the purpose
of the rule. . . . If a party could avoid the sanction by admitting the matter on
the eve of trial, after discovery has been done and expenses incurred by the
28
opposing party, the purpose of the rule 215.4(b) would be thwarted.
Id. at 342. See also Campana v. Bd. of Dir. of the Mass. Housing Fin. Agency, 505 N.E.2d
510 (Mass. 1987) (holding that sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 of Massachusetts Rules of Civil
Procedure were proper when a party stipulated at the outset of trial to a matter that the party
should have admitted pursuant to Rule 36). With respect to whether Durham proved
Peralta’s negligence at trial, the court stated:
Although a judicial admission relieves the opposing party of his obligation to
present evidence on the issue, the fact admitted is proved for the purposes of
trial. . . . A judicial admission must be taken as true by the court and the jury,
and the declarant cannot introduce evidence to contradict it. . . . Because
Peralta’s conduct was proved for purposes of the trial against her, we conclude
rule 215.4(b) is applicable to her conduct.
Peralta, 133 S.W.3d at 342 (citations omitted). I find the reasoning in Peralta quite
persuasive. Clark and Star Transportation should not and cannot be saved from sanctions
because of their admission of liability, which did not occur until after the trial had started,
although prior to any testimony being elicited.
¶47.
I now return to the flawed analysis employed by the circuit judge and relied upon by
the majority. The circuit court utilized an erroneous standard in determining whether to grant
attorneys’ fees as a sanction. It is plain to see that the circuit court utilized the “frivolous
pleading” standard enunciated in the Litigation Accountability Act rather than the
“reasonable ground to believe that he might prevail” standard that is mandated by Rule 37(c).
Even using this erroneous standard, the circuit judge still should have granted sanctions, for
he specifically found that “this court was of the opinion that Fulgham could not be found to
29
be even partially liable.” If Fulgham could not be found to be even partially liable, it
necessarily follows that Perkins and Star Transportation were without substantial justification
for not admitting liability and that their stated reason for not admitting was groundless in fact
and in law. Further, it is quite clear that the circuit judge, in denying Perkins’s expenses for
having to prove that Clark’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident, zeroed
in on expenses for expert testimony, which in the circuit judge’s view was not required to
prove fault. As proof that such expenses were not required, the circuit judge noted that the
plaintiff’s attorneys, who are also the same attorneys that represented Fulgham until her case
was settled, did not hire any experts for Fulgham’s trial. The problem with this reasoning
is that Perkins’s case is a separate case, and her attorneys are free to present her case without
regard to how they may have presented another person’s case. Additionally, they may have
learned from their experience in the prior case that they should do something differently in
Perkins’s case. In any event, Rule 37(c) does not limit the means by which the proof of a
matter may be made as a condition of being reimbursed for proving it.
¶48.
In this case, the trial began on June 16, 2009. The jury was selected and sent to the
jury room. The circuit judge then conferred with counsel and considered pretrial motions.
As stated, after the court decided the motions, Clark and Star Transportation, through
counsel, finally admitted liability without reservation. The trial then continued, and Perkins
called three witnesses before being allowed to call Clark and the corporate representative for
Star Transportation. Each of the witnesses testified as to Clark’s negligence.
¶49.
Under Rule 37(c), the court may award expenses “[i]f a party fails to admit . . . the
30
truth of any matter as requested under Rule 36, and if the party requesting the admissions
thereafter proves . . . the truth of the matter.” M.R.C.P. 37(c). Requests for admissions are
an important part of discovery and are to be taken “very seriously.” Scoggins v. Baptist
Mem’l Hosp.-DeSoto, 967 So. 2d 646, 648 (¶9) (Miss. 2007). In Haley v. Harbin, 933 So.
2d 261, 262-63 (Miss. 2005), the Mississippi Supreme Court noted in an order that: “The
purpose of requests for admissions is to narrow and define issues for trial. . . . Properly used,
requests for admissions serve the expedient purpose of eliminating the necessity of proving
essentially undisputed and peripheral issues of fact.” (Citations and quotations omitted).
Rule 37(c) gives the court the power to enforce the parties’ good-faith compliance with Rule
36.
¶50.
Perkins asked Clark and Star Transportation to admit negligence or liability for the
accident. They refused. Instead, they specifically denied that Clark had caused the accident
and that Clark or Star Transportation were liable. Because of this, Perkins had to prepare for
trial as if the issue of Clark’s and Star Transportation’s negligence or liability were in issue,
i.e. to be tried for a decision by the jury.
¶51.
In her preparations, Perkins had to prepare the evidence necessary to establish, by a
preponderance of the evidence, the elements of negligence: (1) duty, (2) breach of duty, (3)
causation, and (4) damages. Fisher v. Deer, 942 So. 2d 217, 219 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006).
In routine car-accident cases, the elements of duty, breach of duty, and causation are proven
31
by eyewitnesses and expert witnesses.7
¶52.
Based on the claims made and the defenses asserted, Perkins prepared for trial and
retained two expert witnesses.
Rhoades was retained to testify as an accident
reconstructionist.8 Allen was retained to testify as a transportation expert. The experts’
testimonies were to be offered by the plaintiff to establish duty, breach of duty, and
causation. Neither Rhoades nor Allen testified at trial, but it was their fees and expenses that
comprised a large portion of the expenses requested in the Rule 37(c) motion. The circuit
court disregarded these expenses because it was the court’s view that the plaintiff incurred
these expenses in pursuit of her claim for gross negligence. I disagree with the circuit court
in part because their testimonies not only went to the issue of gross negligence, but it also
went to the issue of negligence. On remand, I would direct the circuit court to grant expenses
for the expert-witnesses fees and expenses to the extent they were reasonable and necessary
for Perkins to establish Clark’s negligence.
¶53.
Again, there was no factual basis for Clark or Star Transportation to deny that Clark
was solely responsible for the accident and for Perkins’s damages. Early in discovery, Clark
admitted that she did not stop at the stop sign. Nonetheless, Clark and Star Transportation
asserted an affirmative defense that the accident was caused in whole or in part by the
7
See, e.g., City of Jackson v. Harris, 44 So. 3d 927, 929-31 (¶¶7-15) (Miss. 2010);
Utz v. Running & Rolling Trucking, Inc., 32 So. 3d 450, 468-69 (¶¶52-54) (Miss. 2010).
8
Rhoades has previously testified as an accident-reconstructionist expert witness.
See, e.g., Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tackett, 841 So. 2d 1107, 1111 (¶11) (Miss. 2003); Gen.
Motors Corp. v. Jackson, 636 So. 2d 310, 318-19 (Miss. 1992).
32
negligence of Perkins, a mere passenger in the automobile. As already discussed, Clark and
Star Transportation had no reasonable ground or other good reason to deny total liability.
Clark and Star Transportation’s stated reason for not admitting liability was the fear that such
admission would work against them in their defenses of Perkins’s claim for punitive
damages. This explanation is a red herring. First, Clark and Star Transportation were asked
to admit both negligence and gross negligence, as shown by requests for admission numbers
nine and nineteen propounded to Clark and by requests for admission numbers eight and
eighteen propounded to Star Transportation. They certainly could admit that Clark was
negligent while denying that she was grossly negligent. Second, a jury cannot consider
punitive damages unless the trial judge determines that there is a triable issue in that regard.
By statute, a trial judge cannot submit the issue of punitive damages to a jury unless the jury
has returned a verdict for compensatory damages. And even then, submission of the issue
of punitive damages is not automatic. “The court shall determine whether the issue of
punitive damages may be submitted to the trier of fact. . . .” Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65
(Supp. 2010).
¶54.
For these reasons, I must respectfully dissent.
LEE, C.J., AND ISHEE, J., JOIN THIS OPINION.
33
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.