MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE
2003 Regular Session
To: Judiciary
By: Senator(s) Robertson, Mettetal, King, Hyde-Smith, Kirby, Scoper, Moffatt, Stogner, White, Walden, Michel, Carmichael, Dickerson, Browning, Chaney, Johnson (19th), Nunnelee, Hewes, Ross, Minor, Burton, Canon, Little
AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 11-11-3, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO REVISE THE VENUE IN GENERAL CIVIL ACTIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 11-1-63, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO PROVIDE THAT A PRODUCT SELLER OTHER THAN A MANUFACTURER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR A LATENT DEFECT IF THE SELLER IS A MERE CONDUIT WHO PURCHASED THE PRODUCT FROM A REPUTABLE MANUFACTURER; TO AMEND SECTION 11-1-60, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO PROVIDE LIMITATIONS ON NONECONOMIC DAMAGES IN CIVIL ACTIONS; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI:
SECTION 1. Section 11-11-3, Mississippi Code of 1972, is amended as follows:
11-11-3. * * * Venue for civil actions of which the circuit court has original jurisdiction shall be * * * in the county where the first * * * act or omission giving rise to the cause of action occurred. Venue must be proper as to each and every defendant and each and every plaintiff. Where multiple claims or causes of action are combined in one (1) lawsuit, venue must be proper as to each separate claim or cause of action. If the venue is improper as to any claim or cause of action against any party, then the claims involving that party that are not in the proper venue shall be severed and transferred to the county where venue is proper as to such claims or causes of action. If there is no proper venue for a claim for any reason, including because the first act or omission giving rise to a claim did not occur within a Mississippi county, such claim shall be dismissed without prejudice.
* * *
SECTION 2. Section 11-1-63, Mississippi Code of 1972, is amended as follows:
11-1-63. Subject to the provisions of Section 11-1-64, in any action for damages caused by a product except for commercial damage to the product itself:
(a) The manufacturer or seller of the product shall not be liable if the claimant does not prove by the preponderance of the evidence that at the time the product left the control of the manufacturer or seller:
(i) 1. The product was defective because it deviated in a material way from the manufacturer's specifications or from otherwise identical units manufactured to the same manufacturing specifications, or
2. The product was defective because it failed to contain adequate warnings or instructions, or
3. The product was designed in a defective manner, or
4. The product breached an express warranty or failed to conform to other express factual representations upon which the claimant justifiably relied in electing to use the product; and
(ii) The defective condition rendered the product unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer; and
(iii) The defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of the product proximately caused the damages for which recovery is sought.
(b) A product is not defective in design or formulation if the harm for which the claimant seeks to recover compensatory damages was caused by an inherent characteristic of the product which is a generic aspect of the product that cannot be eliminated without substantially compromising the product's usefulness or desirability and which is recognized by the ordinary person with the ordinary knowledge common to the community.
(c) (i) In any action alleging that a product is defective because it failed to contain adequate warnings or instructions pursuant to paragraph (a)(i)2 of this section, the manufacturer or seller shall not be liable if the claimant does not prove by the preponderance of the evidence that at the time the product left the control of the manufacturer or seller, the manufacturer or seller knew or in light of reasonably available knowledge should have known about the danger that caused the damage for which recovery is sought and that the ordinary user or consumer would not realize its dangerous condition.
(ii) An adequate product warning or instruction is one that a reasonably prudent person in the same or similar circumstances would have provided with respect to the danger and that communicates sufficient information on the dangers and safe use of the product, taking into account the characteristics of, and the ordinary knowledge common to an ordinary consumer who purchases the product; or in the case of a prescription drug, medical device or other product that is intended to be used only under the supervision of a physician or other licensed professional person, taking into account the characteristics of, and the ordinary knowledge common to, a physician or other licensed professional who prescribes the drug, device or other product.
(d) In any action alleging that a product is defective pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, the manufacturer or seller shall not be liable if the claimant (i) had knowledge of a condition of the product that was inconsistent with his safety; (ii) appreciated the danger in the condition; and (iii) deliberately and voluntarily chose to expose himself to the danger in such a manner to register assent on the continuance of the dangerous condition.
(e) In any action alleging that a product is defective pursuant to paragraph (a)(i)2 of this section, the manufacturer or seller shall not be liable if the danger posed by the product is known or is open and obvious to the user or consumer of the product, or should have been known or open and obvious to the user or consumer of the product, taking into account the characteristics of, and the ordinary knowledge common to, the persons who ordinarily use or consume the product.
(f) In any action alleging that a product is defective because of its design pursuant to paragraph (a)(i)3 of this section, the manufacturer or product seller shall not be liable if the claimant does not prove by the preponderance of the evidence that at the time the product left the control of the manufacturer or seller:
(i) The manufacturer or seller knew, or in light of reasonably available knowledge or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, about the danger that caused the damage for which recovery is sought; and
(ii) The product failed to function as expected and there existed a feasible design alternative that would have to a reasonable probability prevented the harm. A feasible design alternative is a design that would have to a reasonable probability prevented the harm without impairing the utility, usefulness, practicality or desirability of the product to users or consumers.
(g) (i) The manufacturer of a product who is found liable for a defective product pursuant to paragraph (a) shall indemnify a product seller for the costs of litigation, any reasonable expenses, reasonable attorney's fees and any damages awarded by the trier of fact unless the seller exercised substantial control over that aspect of the design, testing, manufacture, packaging or labeling of the product that caused the harm for which recovery of damages is sought; the seller altered or modified the product, and the alteration or modification was a substantial factor in causing the harm for which recovery of damages is sought; the seller had actual knowledge of the defective condition of the product at the time he supplied same; or the seller made an express factual representation about the aspect of the product which caused the harm for which recovery of damages is sought.
(ii) Subparagraph (i) shall not apply unless the seller has given prompt notice of the suit to the manufacturer within ninety (90) days of the service of the complaint against the seller.
(h) In any action alleging that a product is defective pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, a product seller other than a manufacturer shall not be liable for a latent defect if the seller is a mere conduit who purchased the product from a reputable manufacturer. It is the intent of this section to insulate innocent sellers who are not actively negligent from forum driven lawsuits. A product seller shall not be considered to have failed to exercise reasonable care with respect to a product based upon an alleged failure to inspect the product if there was no reasonable opportunity to inspect the product, or if the inspection in the exercise of reasonable care would not have revealed that the product was defective.
(i) Nothing in this section shall be construed to eliminate any common law defense to an action for damages caused by a product.
SECTION 3. Section 11-1-60, Mississippi Code of 1972, is amended as follows:
11-1-60. (1) For the purposes of this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed herein unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
(a) "Noneconomic damages" means subjective, nonpecuniary damages arising from death, pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, worry, emotional distress, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium, bystander injury, physical impairment, injury to reputation, humiliation, embarrassment, * * * other nonpecuniary damages, and any other theory of damages such as fear of loss, illness or injury. The term "noneconomic damages" shall not include damages for disfigurement, nor does it include punitive or exemplary damages.
(b) "Actual economic damages" means objectively verifiable pecuniary damages arising from medical expenses and medical care, rehabilitation services, custodial care, disabilities, loss of earnings and earning capacity, loss of income, burial costs, loss of use of property, costs of repair or replacement of property, costs of obtaining substitute domestic services, loss of employment, loss of business or employment opportunities, and other objectively verifiable monetary losses.
* * *
(2) (a) In any civil action for injury * * * if the trier of fact finds the defendant liable, * * * the plaintiff shall not be awarded more than the following for noneconomic damages:
(i) For claims for causes of action filed on or after July 1, 2003, but before July 1, 2011, the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00);
(ii) For claims for causes of action filed on or after July 1, 2011, but before July 1, 2017, the sum of Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($750,000.00);
(iii) For claims for causes of action filed on or after July 1, 2017, the sum of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00).
* * *
(b) The jury shall not be advised of the limitations imposed by this subsection (2) and the judge shall appropriately reduce any award of noneconomic damages that exceeds the applicable limitation.
* * *
(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose a limitation on damages for disfigurement or actual economic damages.
(4) Whether an element of damages may or may not be recovered in any action shall not be governed by the provisions of this section, but shall be governed by applicable statutory or common law.
SECTION 4. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2003.