## Facts

- Mamie Vance Hemphill, who had end-stage renal disease and required dialysis, was admitted to St. Dominic’s Hospital on July 13, 2005, with confusion, decreased appetite, and tremors.
- Physicians suspected sepsis related to her dialysis catheter (her only dialysis access) and treated her with antibiotics while initially leaving the catheter in place.
- Her condition initially improved, but on July 16, 2005, she developed sudden hypotension and abdominal pain, worsened during attempted dialysis, and suffered cardiopulmonary arrest and died.
- Martin Vance, individually and on behalf of Hemphill’s wrongful-death beneficiaries, alleged Dr. Charles H. Laney negligently failed to recognize deterioration, timely transfer her to intensive care, and remove an infected catheter, causing septicemia/systemic inflammatory response and death.
- By trial, all other defendants had been dismissed, leaving Dr. Laney as the sole defendant.
- A jury awarded $1,000,000 (including $200,000 economic and $800,000 noneconomic damages); the trial court reduced economic damages to $103,688 and otherwise denied post-trial relief.
- Dr. Laney appealed, challenging (among other matters) the damages instruction permitting consideration of Hemphill’s “value of life” and allegedly prejudicial closing argument.

## Issues

1. Whether a wrongful-death damages instruction allowing the jury to consider the decedent’s “value of life” improperly authorizes nonrecoverable hedonic damages barred by Mississippi Code § 11-1-69(2).
2. Whether plaintiff’s closing argument improperly appealed to passion or prejudice through repeated “value of life” rhetoric and inflammatory comparisons, and whether the combined effect with the instruction required a new trial.
3. Whether the trial court’s reduction of economic damages to $103,688 (rather than to zero) was erroneous.

## Decision

- The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial.
- The Court held the “value of life” instruction was reversible error because it permitted an impermissible element of damages in a wrongful-death case.
- The Court held plaintiff’s closing argument included improper, prejudicial comments, and that the improper argument and erroneous instruction cumulatively deprived Dr. Laney of a fair trial.
- Because the case was remanded for a new trial, the Court did not limit relief to remittitur or adjustment of damages.

## Legal Principles

- Mississippi Code § 11-1-69(2) bars recovery in wrongful-death actions for “loss of enjoyment of life” caused by death; courts may not permit the same forbidden category through alternative phrasing such as “value of life.”
- Jury instructions are reversible error when they authorize recovery for a nonrecoverable element of damages and are not harmless in context.
- Closing argument must remain tied to evidence and permissible inferences; counsel may not make inflammatory appeals to passion or prejudice that likely affect the verdict.
- Cumulative error may warrant a new trial when multiple trial errors reinforce one another and undermine the fairness of the proceeding.

## Conclusion

The Mississippi Supreme Court ordered a new trial because the jury was improperly instructed to consider the decedent’s “value of life,” effectively permitting barred hedonic damages, and because plaintiff’s closing argument repeatedly invoked that theme with prejudicial rhetoric, together denying the defendant a fair trial.


Laney v. Vance, 112 So. 3d 1079 (Miss. 2013)