12.08.2013 Views

intown lessee - Mississippi Supreme Court

intown lessee - Mississippi Supreme Court

intown lessee - Mississippi Supreme Court

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

physical injury you can see like [Howard’s] face was reconstructed, but psychological cannot<br />

be. So they’re going to be there as long as [Howard] is living on this earth.”<br />

16. Dr. Gupta said that “in the initial evaluation [Poole] was very anxious, so I gave her<br />

a diagnosis of acute stress disorder. As the time progressed as we understand more about<br />

[Poole], we gave a diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder later on.” Dr. Gupta said that<br />

Poole had suffered from panic attacks, but that most of the panic attacks were from her post-<br />

traumatic stress disorder. Further, Dr. Gupta testified that Poole was “not making much<br />

progress. She needs more counseling, and she needs more intensive therapies which will<br />

help her to come out and function like [Howard] is doing right now. [Howard] is holding a<br />

job at this time. [Poole] is not able to do that at this time at all.” He also said that Poole<br />

would need continued treatment with medication.<br />

17. Dr. Gupta testified that, over the lifetime of both Howard and Poole, the cost of each<br />

individual’s psychiatric treatment would be, at a minimum, $500,000.<br />

18. At the close of the plaintiffs’ case-in-chief, InTown rested without presenting<br />

evidence. The jury returned a general verdict in the amount of $2,000,000 for Howard and<br />

$2,000,000 for Poole.<br />

Issues<br />

19. On appeal, InTown raises the following issues:<br />

I. Whether the trial court erred in denying InTown’s motion for directed<br />

verdict and motion for JNOV.<br />

II. Whether InTown owed a duty to Plaintiffs to warn them of the alleged<br />

generalized “atmosphere of violence” on and around the Jackson<br />

property.<br />

III. Whether the cumulative effect of the admission of irrelevant and<br />

inadmissible evidence was highly prejudicial to InTown.<br />

9

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!