Entergy Mississippi, Inc. v. Acey
| Docket Number: | 2013-IA-01291-SCT Linked Case(s): 2013-IA-01291-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-23-2014 Opinion Author: Pierce, J. Holding: Reversed and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Bystander emotional distress - After-the-fact witness Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Randolph, P.J., Chandler and Coleman, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Coleman, J., Specially Concurs With Separate Written Opinion Joined by Randolph, P.J., Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Dissenting Author : Lamar, J., With Separate Written Opinion Dissent Joined By : Dickinson, P.J., Kitchens and King, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-17-2013 Appealed from: TUNICA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: JOHNNIE E. WALLS, JR. Disposition: Denied Entergy's motion for summary judgment Case Number: 2010-0149 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Entergy Mississippi, Inc. |
JOHN H. DUNBAR, JAMES W. SNIDER, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | Mary Bethanne Acey | CHARLES BUCKLEY GRAVES, JR., FRED M. RIDOLPHI, JR. |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Personal injury - Bystander emotional distress - After-the-fact witness |
| Summary of the Facts: | A.A., a minor, was electrocuted while playing on the farmland of David and Sherry Melton. Riley Berry, who worked for the Meltons, had parked a cotton picker under an allegedly sagging power line, which was owned by Entergy Mississippi, Inc. A.A. climbed onto the cotton picker, touched the power line, and was electrocuted. A.A. suffered severe burns to both of her arms and her hip. Her mother, Mary Bethanne Acey, brought an action on behalf of A.A., and individually, against Entergy, David and Sherry Melton, Melton Farms, Mary Mac, Inc., and Norfleet Investments, LP. Defendants settled all claims on behalf of A.A. Regarding Acey’s individual bystander claims for emotional distress, Entergy moved for summary judgment and moved to strike the affidavits of Acey and Dr. William Hickerson. The trial court denied the motions. Entergy was granted an interlocutory appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | When determining whether a bystander may recover for emotional-distress damages, the Court considers whether plaintiff was located near the scene of the accident as contrasted with one who was a distance away from it; whether the shock resulted from a direct emotional impact upon plaintiff from the sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident, as contrasted with learning of the accident from others after its occurrence; and whether plaintiff and the victim were closely related, as contrasted with an absence of any relationship or the presence of only a distant relationship. In this case, Acey fails to meet the first two factors. Acey was not at the scene of the accident when it occurred and she did not experience a sensory or contemporaneous observation of the accident. Acey was an after-the-fact witness, thus, an unforeseeable plaintiff. Therefore, she does not qualify for emotional-distress recovery under Mississippi bystander law. Therefore, summary judgment should be entered in favor of Entergy. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
