Harper v. Wilkaitis et al

Filing 136

ORDER denying 115 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Punitive Damages Claim. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 06/02/2015. (AC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
KIMBERLY HARPER

PLAINTIFF

V.

CAUSE NO. 3:14-CV-580-CWR-FKB

JOHN WILKAITIS; BRENTWOOD
ACQUISITION, INC.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Before the Court is John Wilkaitis’ motion for partial summary judgment on the
plaintiff’s punitive damages claim. Docket No. 115. The matter is fully briefed and ready for
adjudication.
“Mississippi law does not favor punitive damages; they are considered an extraordinary
remedy and are allowed with caution and within narrow limits.” Warren v. Derivaux, 996 So. 2d
729, 738 (Miss. 2008) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see Miss. Code Ann. § 11-165(1)(a). That is especially so in run-of-the-mill car accident cases. E.g., Maupin v. Dennis, 175
So. 2d 130, 131 (Miss. 1965) (“[T]he trial court erred in submitting to the jury punitive damages.
. . . The conduct of Maupin did not indicate any willful or wanton disregard for the safety or
property of others, but simply negligence in failing to exercise due care in the operation of his
car.”). It is therefore unlikely that Wilkaitis will be assessed punitive damages. See Wallace v.
Ford Motor Co., No. 3:11-CV-567-CWR-FKB, 2013 WL 2630241, at *3 (S.D. Miss. June 11,
2013) (granting summary judgment on plaintiff’s punitive damages claim).
Despite these odds, the Mississippi Supreme Court requires trial judges to examine the
“totality of the circumstances and the aggregate conduct of the defendant” before ruling on
punitive damages. Bradfield v. Schwartz, 936 So. 2d 931, 937 (Miss. 2006) (citations omitted).
Here, the totality of the evidence presented at the summary judgment stage shows a fact dispute

as to whether Wilkaitis’ actions rise to the level of gross negligence. That fact dispute means it is
appropriate to hear all the evidence before deciding whether the jury can consider the plaintiff’s
punitive damages claim. See Hankins v. Ford Motor Co., No. 3:08-CV-639-CWR-FKB, 2011
WL 6294473, at *2 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 15, 2011) (denying summary judgment on plaintiff’s
punitive damages claim).
It should go without saying that “the denial of summary judgment on the issue of punitive
damages does not foreclose the possibility that the Court might ultimately refuse to submit the
question to a jury.” Welch v. Loftus, 776 F. Supp. 2d 222, 227 (S.D. Miss. 2011) (citation
omitted). Wilkaitis may reurge his motion at an appropriate point.
The motion is denied.
SO ORDERED, this the 2d day of June, 2015.

s/ Carlton W. Reeves
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2