VICKSBURG - A summer has just ended during which most Entergy customers approached their mailboxes with trepidation. The cost of electricity has been on the rise, big time.
No one, however, got a bill like Carolyn January Hayes, who was widowed 10 years ago this week and has been in litigation with the power company since.
The latest twist is that Entergy says she owes $133,426 as a result of that litigation - which she won at two trials and before the state Supreme Court.
I've written about this nightmare case before. Folks on both sides of the "tort reform" fence need to know how things go in the real world when an individual seeks recourse for harm caused by a big corporation.
Entergy has many incarnations and subsidiaries, but the one we're talking about sells electricity to 416,000 customers in 45 counties in Mississippi. On Oct. 20, 1994, while Lavonne Hayes was at a job site in the small Sharkey County town of Anguilla, he accidentally touched a metal rod to an Entergy line and an estimated 8,000 to 13,000 volts of what Entergy sells coursed through his body, killing him instantly.
In the lawsuit that went to trial - after being delayed six years - jurors heard that the power line had been moved over the sewer lift station by Entergy and wasn't flagged or marked. In turn, they ruled that one-third of the fault for his death belonged to Mr. Hayes for not being careful, one-third belonged to the contractor by whom he was employed and one-third to Entergy.
The amount of money due to Mrs. Hayes, the two children she had with her husband and his additional two children was decided by the jury, too. They settled on $505,000.
Follow the bouncing ball a bit longer: Since fault was divided in thirds, that meant damages had to be divided in thirds, meaning $170,000 was due from each entity assigned blame. Mr. Hayes was dead, meaning he wasn't paying his. The employer was immune from damages by law since his share had been paid in workers comp benefits.
Now, take half of what's left for legal fees and expenses and divide by five plaintiffs (Mrs. Hayes and the four children) and the net to each is about $18,000.
Incredible, given the $505,000 verdict? Maybe. But it was only then that the weirdness really started.
In a different case after the verdict, the Supreme Court changed (the justices prefer the term "clarified") the way damages are apportioned - so the trial judge felt he had no choice except to order a brand-new trial with brand new jurors. They didn't have to assign fault, just come up with a damage figure. Much to the disappointment of Entergy's lawyers, the second jury awarded $10.2 million. That put Entergy's third at $3.3 million, which, of course, the utility liked much less than the $170,000 award.
An appeal followed, and in an opinion Justice Jim Smith, the court's most conservative member (who has since become chief justice), affirmed Entergy's negligence but reinstated the original damage award.
And that, believe it or not, led to the bill Mrs. January received last month.
Read this slowly: Under court procedures, a defendant who declines to pay a judgment pending appeal may be required to post a bond for the amount of the judgment as a surety the plaintiffs will be paid. The appeal lasted more than three years, and the bulk of the $133,426 Entergy now wants is the cost of the bond.
To make this claim with a straight face, Entergy lawyers have to say they won, which, of course, is not really so. They were deemed negligent - the court just opted for the much lesser amount.
Now back to the math. Mrs. Hayes' lawyers are still due half of the original $170,000 as their fee, and they will not share in the new bill since it is an expense of litigation. In light of that bill, to collect their $18,000 checks, the rules say Mrs. Hayes and the children will have to pay a fifth of the total or $26,600 each.
The net? Suing for negligence in the death of their husband and father - and winning - will only cost them $8,600 each.
Super lawyer Dickie Scruggs of Oxford - not involved in the case - called it "outrageous." That's kind of mild.
Checky Herrington, corporate communications director for Entergy, pointed out that it was the plaintiffs who demanded the bond, knowing they might have to pay for it.
He also said that to be "sensitive" to the situation, Entergy has tendered a check for about $62,000 to the court (the difference between the $170,000 award and the $133,426 bill) for the trial judge to distribute as he pleases.
As of last week, Circuit Judge Isadore Patrick had not accepted the check and must have been scratching his head about what to do.
So should we all.
As Scruggs also said, "The $100 million verdicts make the headlines, not the ones like this."
