Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Learmonth
95 So. 3d 633
Miss.2012Background
- Learmonth sustained severe injuries in an Aug 2005 auto/truck collision with a Sears vehicle; suit filed in SD Miss, Eastern Division.
- Jury returned a unanimous $4 million general verdict for Learmonth; verdict form did not itemize economic vs noneconomic damages.
- Sears moved for new trial/remittitur; district court remitted $2,218,905.60 of the verdict to $1 million noneconomic cap, judgment $2,781,094.40.
- Fifth Circuit certified whether § 11-1-60(2)(b) is constitutional; InTown Lessee referenced for interpreting noneconomic-damages cap.
- MS Supreme Court handed down InTown Lessee earlier; this case involved post-trial stipulations and whether the jury’s verdict could be separably analyzed.
- Court ultimately declined to answer the certified question due to lack of a concrete, squarely presented record and not addressing abstract constitutional issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of the cap | Learmonth argues cap violates separation of powers and right to jury trial. | Sears contends cap is constitutional under MS law. | Certified question declined; constitutionality not decided. |
| Whether lack of a special verdict defeats applying the cap | No binding stipulation; jury’s general verdict cannot be dissected to confirm noneconomic amount. | Stipulation or verdict form not established; cap may apply if Noneconomic > $1M. | No resolution due to record not showing binding stipulation; question not squarely presented. |
| Effect of not segregating damages on InTown Lessee framework | InTown Lessee requires evaluation of noneconomic damages independently of economics. | InTown Lessee guidance is limited to jury forms; here record insufficient. | Court did not apply InTown Lessee to decide constitutionality; declined to answer certified question. |
Key Cases Cited
- InTown Lessee Assocs., LLC v. Howard, 67 So.3d 711 (Miss.2011) (requires jury verdict form to specify noneconomic damages for cap analysis)
- Foradori v. Harris, 523 F.3d 477 (5th Cir.2008) (recognizes jury verdict and damages review framework)
- Caldarera v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 705 F.2d 784 (5th Cir.1983) (limits on reconsidering jury awards; discretion in damages)
- Windsor v. City of New York, 353 U.S. 364 (Supreme Court, 1957) (avoid adjudicating constitutional questions in abstract terms)
- U.S. v. National Dairy Prods. Corp., 372 U.S. 29 (Supreme Court, 1963) (avoid addressing constitutional contentions in abstract form)
- Jones v. Harris, 460 So.2d 120 (Miss.1984) (courts may avoid addressing constitutionality absent square presentation)
- Western Line Consolidated School Dist. v. Greenville Mun. Separate Sch. Dist., 433 So.2d 954 (Miss.1983) (limits on deciding constitutional questions)
- Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (Supreme Court, 1938) (federal courts' approach to fact-finding in parallel contexts)