Gary Dillon v. PiCo, Inc.
239 So. 3d 527
Miss. Ct. App.2017Background
- On July 22, 2014 Gary Dillon rear-ended a tractor‑trailer driven by PiCo employee David Rodgers; Dillon was paralyzed from the waist down. Dillon has no recollection of the accident.
- The Dillons sued PiCo (respondeat superior) on April 8, 2015; PiCo served requests for admissions on May 7, 2015 with a 30‑day response deadline.
- Dillon did not timely answer; the requests were deemed admitted on June 8, 2015. Late answers were served July 14, 2015, and a motion to withdraw the admissions was not filed until May 17, 2016 after the court prompted it.
- PiCo moved for summary judgment on April 1, 2016 relying in part on the deemed admissions; the Dillons filed a Rule 56(f) motion for more discovery but did not discuss the admissions in that motion.
- The trial court denied the Dillons’ motions to withdraw the admissions and for more discovery, granted PiCo’s motion for summary judgment based on the deemed admissions, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused its discretion by denying motion to amend/withdraw deemed admissions | Dillon argued the admissions should be withdrawn/amended so the case can be decided on the merits; counsel’s inability to contact clients explained tardiness | PiCo argued admissions were conclusively established after Rule 36 deadline and Dillons unreasonably delayed nearly a year before moving to withdraw | Denial affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; counsel’s contact issues insufficient and Rule 36 enforcement appropriate |
| Whether the court abused its discretion by denying Rule 56(f) motion for more discovery | Dillons claimed discovery incomplete: needed deposition, inspection of truck, expert opinions and safety manual to oppose summary judgment | PiCo argued it could move for summary judgment at any time; admissions made depositions unnecessary; Dillons failed to show specific facts how more discovery would create a triable issue | Denial affirmed: motion lacked specific facts showing how additional discovery would rebut summary‑judgment showing, and Dillons failed to timely present available affidavit/evidence |
| Whether summary judgment was proper | Dillons contended genuine issues remained (e.g., turn signal, braking, lighting) and presented late affidavit/depositions | PiCo relied on Rule 36 deemed admissions conceding Dillon’s fault and other facts; also submitted Rodgers’s affidavit and photographs showing lights operable | Affirmed: deemed admissions and supporting evidence showed no genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment appropriate, derivative consortium claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. Smith, 67 So. 3d 732 (Miss. 2011) (trial court has broad discretion to permit or deny withdrawal of deemed admissions under Rule 36)
- DeBlanc v. Stancil, 814 So. 2d 796 (Miss. 2002) (Rule 36 harshness may be ameliorated by trial court’s discretion to allow withdrawal)
- Earwood v. Reeves, 798 So. 2d 508 (Miss. 2001) (delay in moving to withdraw admissions can constitute prejudice and be self‑imposed)
- Scoggins v. Baptist Mem’l Hosp.-DeSoto, 967 So. 2d 646 (Miss. 2007) (Rule 36 is self‑executing; untimely responses require court relief under Rule 36(b))
- Roberts v. Boots Smith Oilfield Servs. LLC, 200 So. 3d 1022 (Miss. 2016) (Rule 56(f) requires specific facts showing how additional discovery will rebut summary‑judgment showing)
- Vicksburg Healthcare LLC v. Dees, 152 So. 3d 1171 (Miss. 2014) (opponent may serve opposing affidavits up to day before summary‑judgment hearing)
- J & J Timber Co. v. Broome, 932 So. 2d 1 (Miss. 2006) (respondeat superior and derivative nature of loss‑of‑consortium claim)
- Sanderson Farms Inc. v. McCullough, 212 So. 3d 69 (Miss. 2017) (elements required to prove negligence)