Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffdamagesattorneynegligenceappealverdictmotionmalpracticecivil rightslegal malpracticeobjectioncomparative negligence
lawsuitplaintiffdefendantdamagesattorneynegligencestatutemotionsummary judgmentmalpracticecorporationdivorcecomparative negligence

Related Cases

Rogers v. Robson, Masters, Ryan, Brumund and Belom, 74 Ill.App.3d 467, 392 N.E.2d 1365, 30 Ill.Dec. 320
View Case »
Limerick v. Greenwald, 749 F.2d 97, 40 Fed.R.Serv.2d 907
View Case »
Wiesmueller v. Kosobucki, 513 F.3d 784
View Case »
U.S. v. Kellington, 217 F.3d 1084, 54 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 335, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5530, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7377
View Case »
Tedesco v. Mishkin, 689 F.Supp. 1327, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,900, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 6970
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Pinkham v. Burgess, 933 F.2d 1066, 32 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1223

Facts

Kay Pinkham was arrested for forging a stock certificate and later convicted, but her conviction was overturned due to insufficient evidence. She hired attorney John Burgess to represent her in a civil rights action against the parties involved in her arrest and prosecution. Burgess's representation was marked by significant delays, failures to file necessary documents, and neglect of key aspects of the case, ultimately leading to the dismissal of her civil rights claim. Pinkham sued Burgess for malpractice, claiming he negligently advised her and caused her to suffer emotional distress.

In early 1980, Kay Pinkham was arrested for forging a stock certificate with the name of Maurice Rodrigue, a principal stockholder in the corporation that Pinkham and several others had jointly established. The complaining party was a fellow stockholder, Frank Johansen, who, together with Rodrigue, had been involved in a stockholder dispute with Pinkham.

Issue

The main legal issues included whether emotional distress damages were available in a legal malpractice action without a finding that the plaintiff would have prevailed in the underlying lawsuit, and whether comparative negligence could be applied in this context.

Defendant argues that the district court erred in allowing the jury to find emotional distress damages for two reasons. First, he suggests that such damages are not available under Maine law in an attorney malpractice action without a finding that the plaintiff would have prevailed in the underlying lawsuit.

Rule

The court ruled that emotional distress damages could be awarded if they were foreseeable and proximately caused by the attorney's negligent conduct, regardless of the viability of the underlying action. Additionally, comparative negligence was applicable in legal malpractice cases under Maine law.

Maine's comparative negligence statute specifically provides: Where any person suffers … damage as a result partially of his own fault and partly of the fault of any other person or persons, … the damages recoverable in respect thereof shall be reduced to such extent as the jury thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant's share in the responsibility for the damage.

Analysis

The court found that the jury was properly instructed on the availability of emotional distress damages and that Burgess had failed to preserve his objection to this instruction for appeal. The evidence presented supported the jury's finding of severe emotional distress caused by Burgess's negligence, including Pinkham's depression and the impact on her personal life. The court also upheld the jury's finding of comparative negligence, noting that Pinkham had indications of Burgess's inadequate performance over time and could have acted to protect her interests.

Even were the error preserved, however, our review discloses adequate evidence to support the jury's finding of severe emotional distress. There was evidence that Pinkham was severely depressed and taking a strong antidepressant medication, that Burgess' conduct caused her years of anxiety and humiliation, that he caused tremendous friction in her marriage leading to her divorce, and that the protracted suit and fees in part caused the loss of her home.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the jury's verdict, concluding that the evidence supported the findings of negligence and emotional distress, and that the application of comparative negligence was appropriate.

We therefore find that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that Pinkham was comparatively negligent in failing to protect her own interests.

Who won?

Kay Pinkham prevailed in the case, as the jury found that John Burgess was negligent in his representation, causing her emotional distress.

In this case, there was evidence of repeated failures by Burgess to represent Pinkham adequately over a period of years from which jurors could have concluded that the reasonable person would have fired him prior to December 1985, when his ultimate negligence resulted in the adverse grant of summary judgment.

You must be