Laney v. Vance

Supreme Court of Mississippi · Torts

TortsWrongful DeathDamagesJury InstructionsClosing Argument Misconductwrongful deathhedonic damagesvalue of life

Facts

Mamie Vance Hemphill was hospitalized with serious medical conditions, including end-stage renal disease, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and probable sepsis related to her dialysis catheter. Vance alleged that Dr. Laney negligently failed to recognize her worsening condition, failed to move her to intensive care soon enough, and failed to remove the allegedly infected catheter, leading to septicemia, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, and death. At trial, the court instructed the jury that, if it found for Vance, it could award damages including 'the value of the life of Mamie Vance Hemphill.' During closing argument, Vance's counsel also urged the jury to consider 'the value of the life' and made inflammatory remarks about tyranny, democracy, and Nazi or communist countries.

Issue

Whether the trial court committed reversible error by instructing the jury in a wrongful-death case that it could award damages for the decedent's 'value of life,' and whether plaintiff's counsel's prejudicial closing remarks, including references to the 'value of life,' required reversal and a new trial.

Rule

In a Mississippi wrongful-death action, there is no recovery for loss of enjoyment of life caused by death, and hedonic damages for the 'value of life itself' are barred by Mississippi Code Section 11-1-69(2). Accordingly, it is reversible error to instruct a jury that it may consider the decedent's 'value of life' in awarding damages, and prejudicial improper comments in closing argument may warrant reversal and remand for a new trial.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a wrongful-death trial in Jackson, Mississippi, the judge instructs the jury that if it finds for the plaintiff, it may award damages for the decedent's pre-death pain and suffering, lost income, loss of companionship to beneficiaries, and "the inherent value of the decedent's life." Defense counsel objected at the instruction conference, arguing that Mississippi law does not allow recovery for that item.

If the jury returns a plaintiff's verdict, which is the strongest argument on appeal?

Explanation. Mississippi Code Section 11-1-69(2), as applied by the majority opinion, bars recovery in a wrongful-death action for loss of enjoyment of life caused by death, including hedonic damages for the value of life itself. An instruction expressly allowing the jury to award the decedent's inherent value of life is therefore inconsistent with the statute and constitutes reversible error. (Derived from Laney v. Vance (n.d.).)