Howard v. Wilson

Cite

• The Howard v. Wilson case cited Dennis v. Travellers. Therefore, the Court held that “there is no escaping from the bar of the limitation statute applied to all intentional torts by refusing to style the cause reported to a recognized legal firm and, hence, circumvent the statutory prohibition.”

History

• Shell Wilson who was the plaintiff decided to file her case with the trial court in January 2009.

• The defendant filed the request for dismissal in May 2009. She presented a strong argument that the plaintiff had failed to file the case within the required one year for assault case reporting.

• On her side, the plaintiff decided to sue for negligence and the trial court denied the defendant’s plea to dismiss the case in June 2010.

• However, the defendant decided to appeal to the Supreme Court.

• The supreme court decided to reverse the decision of the trial court and it remanded the case.

Order your Case Brief today!

Facts

• The plaintiff, Wilson Lyshell entered Citi Trends located in Mississippi (Jackson) on December 22, 2007, to shop for clothing.

• One of the Citi Trends’ employees, Howard Jocelyn, maliciously, negligently, violently, and recklessly attacked Wilson Lyshell with a pair of scissors and brutally injured her.

• Howard filed a dismissal motion, contending that Wilson failed to appeal within the one-year limitation statute of the Mississippi Supreme Court.

• Wilson responded to Howard’s case by denying that her claim was not a battery of assault. Instead, she held that she had complained of negligence

Law

• The statute of Mississippi holds that “the court will only commence all actions of battery and assault within one year after their occurrence, and not after.”

• It also holds that “there is no escaping from the bar of the limitation statute applied to all intentional torts by refusing to style the cause reported to a recognized legal firm and, hence, circumvent the statutory prohibition.”

Decision

• The trial court decision that rejected the defendant’s appeal for dismissing was reversed by the Supreme Court.

• The Supreme Court made this decision and decided to remand the case.

• The Supreme Court found that the plaintiff wanted to circumvent justice since she knew that she could not raise a case for assault since it was time-barred but now she wanted to raise a suit for negligence.