McFarland v. Entergy Miss., Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-00538-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-CT-00538-SCT ; 2003-CT-00538-SCT ; 2003-CT-00538-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-12-2004 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded for New Trial |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict - Duty of public utility Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Irving, Myers and Chandler, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Ishee, J. Dissenting Author : Bridges, P.J. Dissent Joined By : Griffis, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-07-2003 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: JNOV IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT. Case Number: 251-97-166 c/v |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Thomas R. McFarland |
ROBERT W. SNEED |
||
| Appellee: | Entergy Mississippi, Inc. | JOHN H. DUNBAR WALTER ALAN DAVIS |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Personal injury - Motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict - Duty of public utility |
| Summary of the Facts: | Thomas McFarland brought suit against Entergy Mississippi, Inc. for injuries he received when the truck he was driving collided with a power line maintained by Entergy. The jury returned a verdict for McFarland in the amount of $300,000. The judge then granted Entergy’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and stated that a new trial would be warranted if the grant of the JNOV was overturned on appeal. McFarland appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | It is the continuing duty of a public utility to maintain its wires over streets and highways in such a manner that they will not become dangerous to persons and property. However, the duty is not absolute. The utility is not an insurer against all injuries in any event, however, the rule is not satisfied so as to relieve the utility from liability unless and until it is shown that the company has exercised the highest degree of care to prevent the danger. The evidence in this case is undisputed that the line with which McFarland came into contact was a very strong transmission line hanging only six to eight feet above North Main Street just outside the Leland city limits. The impact knocked McFarland’s eleven-ton truck backwards, tore the driver’s seat from its socket, and threw McFarland into the sleeping compartment of the vehicle where he was in severe pain and coughing up blood. McFarland broke five ribs, had his chest caved in on the right side and his teeth shaved off in the front. He was hospitalized for ten days, had surgery to repair broken bones in his wrist and required seven months of physical therapy. Whether the Entergy line was unreasonably dangerous at the time and place of the accident The question of negligence is one for the jury to decide from the facts of each particular case, and in determining the question of the degree of care to be exercised, it is proper for the jury to take into consideration the location of the lines, whether in thickly or sparsely settled communities, the use to which they are to be put, their remoteness or proximity to travelers on the highway, the harmless or dangerous character of the current to be transmitted, and any other circumstances affecting the case. Here, there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury might find that the transmission line was unreasonably dangerous. Whether and when Entergy knew or should have known of the particular low-hanging line and whether Entergy had time to correct the dangerous situation prior to 7:23 p.m. on February 14, five days after the onset of the ice storm, were properly submitted for the jury's consideration. The jury reasonably found that Entergy exercised insufficient care to protect the traveling public, including McFarland, from the low-hanging line. Therefore, the judge erred in granting the JNOV. The case is remanded for a new trial pursuant to the trial court order. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
