Tag: Auto Negligence

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of March 5, 2024

I’m back. Again. I would like to think I will go back and summarize the last few weeks that I have missed but that is probably water under the bridge at this point. Pressing forward, the Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down seven opinions today. These decisions cover custody, felonies, personal injury, unemployment, and zoning. Notably, two criminal convictions were reversed.

Patrick v. Patrick, 2021-CA-00891-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming the chancery court’s denial of the mother’s petition for contempt and modification and granting the father’s motion for modification, holding that the issue of custody was clearly before the chancellor who properly determined that there was a material change in circumstances that adversely affected the children, conducted a proper Albright analysis, and was within his discretion to order a change in legal and physical custody.
(8-1-1: McCarty concurred in part and in the result and McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part. Neither wrote.)

Allen v. State, 2022-KA-00419-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Reversing convictions six counts of statutory rape, holding that the jury was not properly instructed as to the State’s burden of proof and remanding for a new trial.
(9-1-0: McDonald concurred in result only without writing.)

Practice Point: The erroneous instruction was submitted by the defense, but the Court noted that the “invited-error doctrine” did not apply where the jury was not properly instructed on the elements of the crime. Here is the Court’s summary of the issues with the jury instructions:

Fletcher v. State, 2022-KA-00868-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of capital murder and sentence as habitual offender, holding that the trial court did not err when it failed to suppress the defendant’s statement to law enforcement officials.
(10-0)

The Avion Group, Inc. v. The City of Oxford, 2023-CA-00169-COA (Civil – Other)
Affirming the circuit court’s decision denying an ordinance variance to repair a wall/fence that enclosed the petitioner’s property, holding that the petitioner did not waive its challenge to the city’s code interpretation but that the circuit court’s interpretation of the code provisions at issue were not erroneous.
(10-0)

Carter v. C&S Canopy, Inc., 2022-CA-00730-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of a driver and his employer in an auto-negligence case, holding that there was no evidence to support the plaintiff’s claim that the driver negligently continued to drive a “sluggish” truck on the interstate, that the defendants were negligent in their efforts to get the truck towed, that the location of reflective triangles was the proximate cause of the crash, that the defendant could have safely moved the disabled truck anywhere other than where he did, that the driver should have registered as a for-hire carrier, or that the employer negligently failed to train the driver.

Appellate Math Warning: None of us signed up for this.

Marshall v. State, 2022-KA-00541-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Reversing conviction of first-degree murder, holding that the circuit court erred in denying the defense’s peremptory strikes of three jurors, holding that the defense provided valid, race-neutral reasons for the strikes.
(10-0)

Cain v. M.D.E.S., 2023-CC-00188-COA (Civil – State Boards & Agencies)
Affirming denial of claim for unemployment benefits, holding that the circuit court properly dismissed the claimant’s appeal of denial as untimely.
(10-0)

Other Orders

Walker v. State, 2022-KA-00482-COA (denying rehearing)

Gregory Meridian Acquisition, LLC v. McFarland, 2022-CA-00580-COA (denying rehearing)

Fox v. Fox, 2022-CA-00918-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of April 4, 2023

I am playing catch-up because my paying work had me preoccupied last week. The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down seven opinions last Tuesday. There were a couple of direct criminal appeals, an alimony case, an appeal of a $2.8M auto liability verdict, a couple of PCR cases, and an appeal of an MDOC issue.

Gillenwater v. Redmond, 2021-CA-01378-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming modification of alimony, holding that chancellor did not abuse her discretion by reducing (but not terminating) the alimony obligation based on the ex-wife’s cohabitation and mutual support.
(8-1-0: Westbrooks concurred in the result only without separate written opinion; Judge Lawrence did not participate.)

Tubwell v. State, 2022-KM-00342-COA (Criminal- Misdemeanor)
Affirming conviction of violating the child-restraint laws, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction where there were two adults and three children in a single-cab pickup and one child was sitting in the driver’s lap.
(8-2-0: McDonald concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Westbrooks concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.)

Winters v. State, 2022-CP-00435-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming dismissal of PCR motion, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that the motion was time-barred, successive, and without merit.
(10-0)

Williamson v. State, 2021-KA-00830-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of burglary of a dwelling, burglary of a shed, and trafficking stolen firearms, holding that the evidence was sufficient and that the verdict was not against the weight of it and that there was no error admitting evidence of other crimes, in denying a motion to suppress evidence obtained in a search of the defendant’s home, in denying a motion for continuance, or in not halting trial during a power outage.
(10-0)

Everett v. State, 2021-CP-01385-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the denial of a PCR motion, holding that the illegal sentence claim was time-barred and without merit and that the claim regarding earned-discharged credits was properly dismissed because that claim should have been filed in the venue where the plaintiff is housed.
(8-1-0: No separate opinions – Westbrooks concurred in result only and Smith did not participate)

Robinson v. MDOC, 2022-CP-00018-COA (Civil – State Boards & Agencies)
Affirming denial of petition for judicial review after the petitioner was denied a request to participate in the Meritorious Earned TIME Incentive Program, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that the court lacked personal jurisdiction because MDOC had not been given notice of the appeal and that the petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
(8-2-0: No separate opinions – McCarty concurred in part and in the result and McDonald concurred in result only.)

Kirk v. Newton, 2021-CA-00684-COA (Civil – Tort)
Affirming a nearly $2.8 million verdict in an auto liability case, holding that the question of who caused the accident was a fact issue for the jury, that there was no evidence of bias, passion, or prejudice to show that the award should be reduced or set aside, and that there was no error in using national average for wage calculation that was lower than the plaintiff’s actual wages where the jury heard both sides from experts and weighed their credibility.
(8-1-1: Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Greenlee dissented.)

NOTE – I do not think this case represents the departure from Rebelwood that I thought it would when I was first reading it. My take is that the fact that the national average figure used by the plaintiff was less than the actual wage-earning history was critical to this decision.

Other Orders

$41,080 v. State, 2021-CA-00692-COA (denying rehearing)

Durant Healthcare, LLC v. Garrette, 2021-CA-00823-COA (denying rehearing)

Owens v. State, 2021-KA-000887-COA (denying rehearing)

The Banking Group, Inc. v. Southern Bancorp Bank, 2021-CA-01077-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Summaries of the Mississippi Supreme Court’s opinions of April 21, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions today. One decides an interlocutory appeal of the denial of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a tire blowout case that hinged on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The other is a criminal case considering convictions for attempted willful trespass and auto burglary that addresses issues of whether the indictment was sufficient, whether evidence of other was acts should have been excluded, and whether the defendant’s “theory of the case” instruction was wrongly denied.

Darling Ingredients Inc. v. Moore, 2020-IA-01149-SCT (Civil – Personal Injury/Res Ipsa Loquitur)
On interlocutory appeal, reversing the circuit court’s denial of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in an auto liability case stemming from the failure of a tire on the defendants’ vehicle, holding that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply because a vehicle’s tire can fail for reasons other than negligence of the vehicle’s driver or owner. Because the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was not applicable and the plaintiff had no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendants, judgment was rendered for the defendants.
(This decision was unanimous)

NOTE: Although this opinion stops just short of specifically saying so, I read it as establishing a bright-line rule that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable to cases where a motorist is injured by the failure of a tire on another vehicle:

This opinion is also noteworthy for its succinct summary of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and its analysis of the second element (“the occurrence was such that in the ordinary course of things it would not have happened if those in control of the instrumentality used proper care”) that will be useful in future RIL briefing.

Brady v. State, 2021-KA-00163-SCT (Criminal – Felony/Willful Trespass/Auto Burglary)
Affirming convictions of attempted willful trespass and two counts of auto burglary, holding (1) no error in denying a motion to quash the indictment for attempted burglary of a dwelling because the indictment adequately alleged an overt act, (2) no error in not sua sponte precluding evidence of other bad acts not related to the indicated charges, and (3) no error in denying a proposed instruction that the defense argued expounded on the defense’s theory of the case where the subject of the proposed instruction was adequately covered in other jury instructions.
(Justice Coleman dissented, arguing that the indictment failed to allege an overt act in furtherance of the attempted breaking and entering)

Other Orders

Carter v. State, 2019-CT-01854-SCT (denying cert petition)
Burgin v. State, 2020-CT-01031-SCT (denying cert petition)
The Mississippi Bar v. Sims, 2021-BD-01090-SCT (granting petition to transfer license to disability inactive status)
In Re: Administrative Orders of the Supreme Court of Mississippi (directing the disbursement of $160,623.66 in civil legal assistance funds among the MS Volunteer Lawyers Project, North MS Rural Legal Services, and MS Center for Legal Services)

Hand Down List

In other news, congratulations to Professor Christopher Green of Ole Miss Law who was cited four (4) times in Justice Thomas’s concurrence in United States v. Madero that was decided today.