Robinson Property Group, Ltd. Partnership v. McCalman
2011 Miss. LEXIS 19
| Miss. | 2011Background
- Wrongful-death heirs sue a casino and the other driver after an automobile collision; trial court finds joint and several liability against casino.
- Casino appeals Dram Shop Act liability, arguing no evidence of serving to visibly intoxicated Dean and cannot be jointly liable.
- Dean gambled for sixteen hours at the casino, receiving free Corona beer; BAC later measured at 0.16 (10 p.m.) and 0.13 (1 a.m.).
- Harris, the other driver, and two passengers died; Harris had BAC 0.08; Dean was the only negligent driver in the casino context.
- Jury apportions fault: Dean 50%, casino 45%, Harris 5%; court reduces for Harris’s negligence and labels joint and several liability.
- Mississippi Joint and Several Liability Act allows joint liability up to 50% of recoverable damages, not full liability, unless the deliberate-conspiracy exception applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dram Shop Act applicability | McCalman/Holmes contend casino served to visibly intoxicated Dean. | Casino contends Dean was not visibly intoxicated when served. | Casino liable under Dram Shop Act; sufficient evidence of visible intoxication. |
| Joint and several liability cap | Recoverable damages should support joint and several liability up to 50%. | Casino argues only proportional liability absent a triggering exception. | Casino liable jointly and severally up to 50% of recoverable damages; subsection 6 not shown. |
| Conscious and deliberate common plan | Plaintiffs argue subsection 6 applies due to concerted tortious act. | No evidence of casino pursuing a common plan or deliberate participation. | Subsection 6 does not apply; no conscious and deliberate common plan found. |
| Comparative negligence of decedents | Instruction on decedents’ comparative negligence should be allowed if supported by evidence. | Insufficient evidence that decedents knew or should have known of impairment. | Court properly refused comparative negligence instruction; insufficient evidence. |
| Admission of DUI charge evidence | Evidence relating to DUI investigations could prejudice if not admitted with proper cure. | No controlling authority cited; issue waived. | Court declines consideration due to lack of authority cited; not addressed on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. State, 926 So.2d 205 (Miss. 2006) (uses weight of evidence standards and standard of review principles)
- Read v. So. Pine Elec. Power Ass’n, 515 So.2d 916 (Miss. 1987) (credibility of witnesses is a jury issue)
- Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tackett, 841 So.2d 1107 (Miss. 2003) (credibility and weight of expert testimony)
- Cousar v. State, 855 So.2d 993 (Miss. 2003) (interpretation of contributory/conduct standards in state law)
- Brown v. State, 39 So.3d 890 (Miss. 2010) (appellate standards and evidentiary review)