What is a Common Law State?
A common law state is one in which the court systems trace their legal reasoning and decisions back to common law, or judge-made law. A common law system stands in contrast to a civil law system, in which law is established by legislative bodies. In a civil law jurisdiction, a court merely has to consider the relationship of the parties before it in determining a ruling. In a common law system, precedent must also be given weight in making rulings.
Enshrined in the English common law system is the idea of stare decisis. Translating as "to stand by things decided , " stare decisis requires that courts follow the holding of cases that have already been adjudicated. This allows common law systems to borrow intelligently from each other. It also creates a predictable, steady development of the law. If a ruling is made one way in one state, other states may be able to determine whether its own law would lead to a similar outcome. If a different ruling is made in a separate court, then those in the latter jurisdiction can be aware of the potential difference in the outcome of a case.
Is Mississippi’s Legal System a Common Law System?
The Mississippi Supreme Court has reaffirmed and reestablished its position as a common law state. The new trend is exemplified by Hartman v. Johnson, 2011 Miss. Lexis 336 (Miss. August 4, 2011). In that case, the Supreme Court overturned case law precedent because of the absence of authority in the pattern jury instructions, the court rules, or the common law of Mississippi, which suggests the existence of the procedural mechanism recognized in Hartman, i.e., granting a new trial on damages alone without granting a new trial on liability.
In 2006, Landon Hartman was in an automobile accident. He sued his own insurance company for uninsured motorist benefits and was awarded $100,000. Hartman then filed a separate suit against wisdom Hill who he alleged was liable for the accident. Hill admitted liability but contested Hartman’s damages. At trial, the jury awarded Hartman $250,000 in damages. Hartman then moved for a new trial solely on the issue of damages. The trial court granted the motion for a new trial and ordered a new trial on damages only.
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court finding that a new trial on damages only, absent a new trial for liability, has never before been recognized in Mississippi. The Court sought to establish the legal foundation for their holding as a "new line of authority." The Court applied the following rationale to justify the decision: The core question before this Court is whether or not the circuit court’s decision to grant a new trial on damages alone, and not on liability, is in conflict with the "one trial rule" and whether the one trial rule has ever been specifically stated and applied in the context of tort cases in Mississippi. After an extensive analysis of relevant cases and sources that form the body of law within the state, the Court found there was no conflicted and no authority whatsoever to support the notion of granting a new trial for damages only. They held that Mississippi is a common law state, and that the "one recovery rule," announced in THI of Mississippi, LLC v. Foster ex rel. Foster, 45 So.3d 698 (Miss. 2010), does not apply in the context of granting a new trial on damages only.
Common Law or Statutory Law in the State of Mississippi?
As mentioned earlier, Mississippi is considered a common law state. Even so, statutory law abounds. Many areas of the law are governed by statute rather than common law principles. Another consideration is that even if a rule has its origin in common law, it may have been modified or codified by legislative enactments.
For example, all motor vehicle insurance policies in Mississippi provide coverage for damage to persons and property up to specified limits. However, the liability of the insurer who sells you that policy is determined entirely by statute. The "insurance contract" you sign does not govern the relationship between you and your insurer. It is a statutory relationship.
To further complicate things, the statutory law applicable to motor vehicles is a codification of common law rules and also is based upon public policies enunciated by the legislature.
The Mississippi Constitution provides that the statutes of the state shall be divided into one category designated as "general statutes" and another category designated as "local and private statutes." Locals and private statutes are ordinances or other legislative acts which apply specifically to a city, county or entity. General statutes apply to the state generally unless by specific provision of the statute itself it is limited in scope to only specific local units, such as counties or municipalities.
If you are involved in a personal injury case, the basic "rules" are derived from common law. For example, the basic rule for negligence is that you must exercise ordinary care to not injure another. However, at least 11 statutes essentially modify the common law negligence rules to some extent.
How Common Law Applies to the State of Mississippi?
In practice, the application of common law in Mississippi has several implications for legal proceedings. Since Mississippi courts are bound by the decisions made by higher courts, it is essential to be aware of precedent and their impact on a case. Legislative enactments are the final source of law in O’Leary v. State ex rel. Parker, 788 So. 2d 748 (Miss. 2001). Therefore, court decisions are made with an eye towards the Mississippi legislature so as not to make their decisions in vain.
The precedential value of a case decision is determined by the level of the court whose decision it is. In general, lower courts are obligated to show respect to the decisions of higher courts. In Mississippi, lower trial courts must follow the decisions made by the supreme and appellate courts, while apprentice and municipal courts must follow the decisions made by the supreme court within their territorial jurisdiction (Murphy v. Ruff, 614 So. 2d 582 , 586 (Miss. 1992)). Once the legislature changes a law, before the change, it has been interpreted by the courts, the court’s opinions controlling until the legislature states otherwise (Wray v. Southern Pac. Co., 285 S.W. 657 (Mo. App. 1926)).
While judges have some impact on how the factual laws are interpreted, judges cannot create new law (Holt v. J. D. Wilder Transfer Co., 85 So. 2d 49, 52 (Miss. 1956)). Because Mississippi is a common law state, judges are allowed to determine how certain principles apply to the available facts. It is also within their jurisdiction to declare the purpose of legislation in connection to the facts before them (Mississippi Power Company v. Mississippi State Tax Commission, 94 So. 2d 184, 187 (Miss. 1957)). While common and statutory law is not necessarily contrary to one another, the common law is subordinate to legislative enactments (Guyton v. State, 451 So. 2d 506, 511 (Miss. 1984)).
Examples of Common Law in Mississippi
There is quite a bit of common law in Mississippi that has been developed by cases decided by the Mississippi Supreme Court over the years. As discussed above, when it comes to Mississippi statutes, they have to be interpreted in accordance with the Rules of Statutory Construction. Common law, however, has no such requirement.
The Mississippi Supreme Court can create common law rules as it sees fit. When the Court does so, the rule has the same effect as a rule passed by the legislature.
For example, in 1946, the Mississippi Supreme Court recognized a claim against an insurance company for tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. This is known as the new tort of first-party insurance bad faith. It is based on the idea that since insurance policies are known for having certain standard language in them, it is not changing the contract when the insurance company has to protect the insured from its dishonest conduct. Rather, it changes the rights of the insurance company under various sections of the policy to comply with its duty of good faith. The idea is that if the insurance company did not want to assume the extra duty, it could have drafted the policy so as not include such a duty.
This rule applies today in Mississippi and has been used to impose liability on insurance companies who have acted badly towards their insureds. Moreover, the rule has been adopted by many states around the country. This is an example of common law rules being adopted and spread over the years in Mississippi.
The Future of Common Law in the State of Mississippi
As we look toward the future, the applicability and scope of common law across the state of Mississippi continues to evolve. While it is clear that Mississippi is still technically a common law state, the doctrine of stare decisis issued from the Supreme Court of Mississippi has been compromised. More and more , the Mississippi Supreme Court is willing to take-up issues of first impression. It is not uncommon to see the High Court abrogate other circuit or chancery court rulings in favor of those that better align with the Supremes’ own interpretation of what the law should be at any given moment. This practice is not in line with the traditional roots of the doctrine of stare decisis and would seem to signify a movement away from stare decisis principles. Of course, it is challenging for practitioners and the public to discern when this is the case and when it is not. Therefore, the common law in Mississippi is alive and well as a living, breathing thing that evolves with the potential to change with the wind.