InTown Lessee Associates, LLC v. Howard
67 So. 3d 711
| Miss. | 2011Background
- Howard and Poole rented an InTown motel room in June 2008 and were robbed there on June 27, 2008, suffering serious injuries.
- The assailants stole money, IDs, and Poole’s phone; Howard required facial reconstructive surgery.
- Plaintiffs alleged InTown owed invitees a duty to exercise reasonable care and to provide adequate security, warning, and maintenance.
- Trial began Sept. 21, 2009; jury awarded $2,000,000 to each plaintiff, and InTown did not present defenses.
- Jackson police testified that InTown had prior crime problems and discussed security improvements; testimony framed foreseeability concerns.
- The circuit court denied post-trial relief; InTown appealed, and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Directed verdict/JNOV on causation | Howard/Poole showed foreseeability and security failure | InTown lacked proof that security failure caused injuries | No reversible error; substantial evidence supported verdict |
| Duty to warn about atmosphere of violence | InTown owed warning duties; jury instruction allowed this theory | No duty to warn about general violence without notice | Procedurally barred; no error reached on appeal |
| Cumulative/prejudicial evidence | Evidence of profitability and other locations showed foreseeability | Evidence was inadmissible and prejudicial | Harmless error; evidence did not affect substantial rights |
| Comparative negligence | Plaintiffs were not contributorily negligent; defense urged otherwise | Victims could bear some fault for not complying with demands | No error; Mississippi law does not require such comparative fault here |
| Cap on noneconomic damages/remittitur | Cap applied; remittitur denied improperly | Cap should reduce noneconomic portion; verdict form unclear | Remittitur not warranted; cap applied by trial court was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- USAA v. Lisanby, 47 So.3d 1172 (Miss. 2010) (review of JNOV de novo; substantial evidence standard)
- Adcock v. Miss. Transp. Comm’n, 981 So.2d 942 (Miss. 2008) (directed verdict and JNOV standard; substantial evidence)
- Spotlite Skating Rink, Inc. v. Barnes ex rel. Barnes, 988 So.2d 364 (Miss. 2008) (standard for reviewing evidence in light favorable to appellee)
- Hyundai Motor Am., v. Applewhite, 53 So.3d 749 (Miss. 2011) (contemporaneous objection rule; procedural bar on appeal)
- Flight Line, Inc. v. Tanksley, 608 So.2d 1149 (Miss. 1992) (assess damages and negligence guidance)
- U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Martin, 998 So.2d 956 (Miss. 2008) (standard for JNOV/appeals; remittitur context)
- Kingly v. State, 857 So.2d 702 (Miss. 2003) (rules on individualized verdict forms and preservation on appeal)