Lawsuit Information CenterUnder Mississippi law, anyone who has been the victim of sexual abuse or assault can file a civil lawsuit against not just the person who abused them, but also against churches, schools, or other third parties who negligently enabled the abuse to happen. This post will look at the basic elements of a sex abuse lawsuit in Mississippi. We will also analyze the potential settlement value of Mississippi sex abuse lawsuits.
Articles Posted in Mississippi
Mississippi Injury Verdicts and Settlements
In Mississippi, personal injury law governs a broad range of legal disputes stemming from incidents that result in bodily harm, emotional distress, or other damages. These may include car accidents, slip and falls, medical malpractice, etc.
Understanding the potential settlement payouts and jury awards available to victims in personal injury cases is essential. It is also hard. The amount of compensation awarded to a plaintiff in Mississippi can depend on various factors, such as the severity of the injuries, the degree of fault or negligence involved, and the case’s specific circumstances.
This page explores personal injury law in Mississippi, including the state’s laws and regulations, such as the statute of limitations, and examines recent cases to provide examples of typical settlement amounts and jury awards.
Mississippi Slip and Fall Settlements and Verdicts
Mississippi law and Mississippi jurors give slip-and-fall victims a fair shake. Here are some recent slip and fall verdicts and settlements in Mississippi.
Mississippi Slip and Fall Verdicts and Settlements
Below are recent Mississippi slip and fall cases. A few years back in the Hattiesburg American, there was an article that slip and fall lawsuits in Mississippi were on the rise. The article offers nothing substantive to support the premise; the opposite may be true. We see fewer reported Mississippi slip-and-fall settlements and verdicts in 2023.
Burden of Proof Hurdle Too High in Mississippi
A Mississippi Appeals court recently affirmed a trial court decision to throw out a Wal-Mart premise liability case involving a damaged container and corrosive burns. Instead of letting the events (and the injuries) speak for themselves, the court places an extremely high evidentiary expectation that was out of the plaintiff’s grasp. Should courts be allowing corporations to escape liability just because the plaintiff is unable to show every single detail of the accident when he is clearly injured? It is a challenge courts have wrestled with for hundreds of years.
What happened? A patron visited a Mississippi Wal-Mart in the fall of 2010. While perusing the aisles, he selected a bottle of bleach to put in his basket. After leaving the checkout counter, the patron realized he accidentally forgot to purchase the bleach and placed the bottle on his lap to return to the cashier. Unfortunately, this bottle of bleach was leaking and spilled its contents on his legs and thighs. Because of a prior injury, the man had been paralyzed from the waist down since 1967 and he did not become aware of the spilled bleach until the cashier noticed the leaking bottle. The bleach caused chemical burns on his thigh and knee, and he brought suit against the Wal-Mart Corporation.
The patron filed a premise liability claim that alleged Wal-Mart was negligent and had knowledge of a dangerous condition. Wal-Mart made a motion for summary judgment, and the trial court dismissed the case, saying that the patron failed to prove Wal-Mart’s negligent act. The Mississippi Appeals Court affirmed the lower court’s decision.
Mississippi High Court on Experts and Collateral Sources
The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed a directed verdict for a hospital in a nursing medical malpractice action in which the plaintiff suffered IV infiltration – leakage of fluid from an IV into the patient’s tissues from an IV line – and burn injuries.
The directed verdict from the trial court struck Plaintiffs’ expert from testifying as to the standard of care even though the expert had already been accepted as an expert on the nursing care given by the hospital. Had the expert been permitted to testify, she would have testified as to the standard of care for IV infiltrations and that the hospital breached that standard.
The Mississippi high court also make a good call for plaintiffs on the question of the collateral source set off when the amount of the liens/bills have been reduced.