Lisa Learmonth v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4035
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Learmonth was seriously injured in a Sears vehicle collision; federal diversity suit proceeded to trial in which the jury awarded $4 million in compensatory damages.
- District court apportioned the verdict: about $90,098 for past medical expenses, $483,510 for future medical expenses, $1,207,486 for lost earning capacity, and $2,218,905.60 for noneconomic damages.
- Sears sought remittitur and applied Mississippi’s noneconomic damages cap of $1,000,000 under § 11-1-60(2)(b); Learmonth challenged the cap as unconstitutional.
- Mississippi Supreme Court declined to answer the certified constitutional question; Fifth Circuit then addressed merits.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court, holding the cap constitutional and not violative of Mississippi’s jury-trial or separation-of-powers provisions.
- The court clarified that the cap acts as a legal limit on judgment, not a remittitur of the jury’s factual damages finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the cap violates the Mississippi Constitution | Learmonth argues cap infringes jury-trial and separation-of-powers rights. | Sears contends cap is a valid legislative restriction on remedies. | Cap constitutional; no violation. |
| Erie/Issue preservation for applying the cap | Learmonth contends waiver/Erie forecloses applying cap without itemization. | Sears argues federal procedure governs verdict interpretation consistent with Erie. | Waived; no Erie consequence; constitutional ruling remanded. |
| Whether § 11-1-60(2)(b) interferes with the jury's factfinding | Cap alters a jury’s compensatory damages finding. | Cap only restricts judgment amount, not jury’s facts. | Cap interpreted as legal limit on judgment, not a change to verdict facts. |
| Whether the legislature can define remedies after common-law changes | Remittitur and common-law remedies are judicial prerogatives; legislature cannot alter. | Legislature may alter remedies; statutes may codify remittitur-like limits. | Legislature may alter remedies; no constitutional intrusion. |
| Due process/remedy considerations as a separate challenge | Cap may violate due process or remedy clauses. | Waived due process/remedy challenges; no basis to strike cap. | Waived; no change in outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415 (1996) (Erie-like discussion on trial-related discretion)
- Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) (federal courts apply state substantive law in diversity cases)
- Hood v. State, 17 So. 3d 548 (Miss. 2009) (constitutional validity of statutes; presumption of validity)
- Dedeaux v. Pellerin Laundry, Inc., 947 So.2d 900 (Miss. 2007) (remittitur doctrine and jury verdict integrity)
- James v. State, 731 So.2d 1135 (Miss. 1999) (burden on showing unconstitutionality of statute)