356 So.3d 1246
Miss. Ct. App.2023Background:
- Tenant Kimberly Course and her two young daughters lived at Woodridge Apartments; Course chose the complex because of advertised surveillance and assurances of safety.
- One evening Course found an office key left in her apartment door and discovered a burglary; a PlayStation, a MacBook Pro, and a .38 revolver were stolen.
- Management did not inform Course, failed to review footage covering her unit (cameras did not cover her apartment), and responded indifferently to her complaints; Course received a three-day notice after withholding rent.
- Course developed significant anxiety (diagnosed as generalized anxiety disorder by Dr. Gordon), experienced physical symptoms, required ongoing psychotherapy, and Dr. Gordon estimated future treatment costs of $23,800–$26,400.
- A jury returned $492,080 total: $42,080 economic (including past and future psychiatric treatment) and $450,000 noneconomic ($250,000 past pain and suffering; $200,000 future). Liability was unanimous; damages votes were 11–1 (past) and 9–3 (future).
- Woodridge moved for remittitur arguing the noneconomic award was excessive; the trial court denied relief and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Judge Wilson dissented, arguing the award was excessive and proposing a large remittitur.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury's noneconomic damages ($450,000) were excessive and require remittitur | Course: psychiatric injury, ongoing symptoms, and a multi-year therapy plan justify the award | Woodridge: award is disproportionate to $42,080 in economic damages and the evidence; influenced by passion; remittitur required | Court: Affirmed denial of remittitur — award not excessive; jury entitled to broad leeway; evidence supports psychiatric injury and future care |
Key Cases Cited
- Entergy Miss. Inc. v. Bolden, 854 So. 2d 1051 (Miss. 2003) (standard of review for remittitur is abuse of discretion; remittitur grounds: bias/passion or award contrary to overwhelming weight of evidence)
- Cade v. Walker, 771 So. 2d 403 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) (jury has especially broad leeway in pain-and-suffering awards; no fixed standards for remittitur)
- Gatewood v. Sampson, 812 So. 2d 212 (Miss. 2002) (upholding a large noneconomic award relative to special damages in a security/negligence context)
- APAC Miss. Inc. v. Johnson, 15 So. 3d 465 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (court affirmed substantial multiple-of-medical-expense awards where evidence supported ongoing injury)
- Robinson v. Corr, 188 So. 3d 560 (Miss. 2016) (affirming noneconomic award where credible testimony supported ongoing pain and impairment)
- Miss. State Fed’n of Colored Women’s Club Hous. for Elderly in Clinton Inc. v. L.R., 62 So. 3d 351 (Miss. 2010) (jury awards will not be set aside unless unreasonable or outrageous)
- Stratton v. Webb, 513 So. 2d 587 (Miss. 1987) (each damages case decided on its particular facts)
- Kinnard v. Martin, 223 So. 2d 300 (Miss. 1969) (jury discretion in awarding damages must be exercised reasonably to compensate actual loss)
- Parsons v. Walters, 297 So. 3d 250 (Miss. 2020) (compensatory damages should compensate the injury suffered, not punish)