Johnson v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2003-CA-00094-COA
Oral Argument: 03-11-2004
 

 

* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users).

Court of Appeals: Opinion Date: 05-11-2004
Opinion Author: LEE, J.
Holding: Affirmed
Additional Case Information: Topic: Personal injury - Jury instructions - Section 77-9-249 (4) - Section 77-9-225 - Motion in limine - Aerial photographs - Panoramic photographs - Mathematical calculations
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., BRIDGES AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., THOMAS, MYERS, CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ.
Concurs in Result Only: IRVING, J.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 09-16-2002
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: W. Swan Yerger
Disposition: VERDICT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT/APPELLEE
  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: SHARON CLARK, GRACIE HULSEY, JAMES W. ROGERS, LYNDA EATON, AND SHERMAN ROGERS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS THE ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF PATRICIA MARTIN, DECEASED AND ON BEHALF OF ALL WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF PATRICIA MARTIN




 PAT M. BARRETT JOSEPH L. MCNAMARA DEREK ARTHUR WYATT RICHARD RUNFT BARRETT



  
Appellee: ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY CHAD MICHAEL KNIGHT GEORGE H. RITTER  
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 - Jury instructions - Section 77-9-249 (4) - Section 77-9-225 - Motion in limine - Aerial photographs - Panoramic photographs - Mathematical calculations
Summary of the Facts: After Patricia Martin was killed when her vehicle was struck by a train, her wrongful death beneficiaries filed suit against Illinois Central Railroad and Richard Whiddon, the train's engineer. The jury found for the defendants. The beneficiaries appeal.
Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Jury instructions The beneficiaries argue that the court erred in refusing to grant a number of instructions. With regard to the first instruction, it was properly denied as misleading since it would have opened the door to rampant speculation as to potential safety precautions and possible maintenance steps which were not at issue in this trial. With regard to the second instruction, it neither fairly nor adequately instructs the jury as to the applicable law since it ignores the duty required by section 77-9-249 (4) which provides that a driver shall slow down, yield the right-of-way, and stop if required for safety when arriving at a crossing marked only by a crossbuck. With regard to two other instructions, the language of one muddies the statutory guidelines outlining an approaching train's duty to warn, while the other instruction altogether ignores it. They substitute ambiguous language for the standard clearly enunciated in section 77-9-225. The beneficiaries also argue that the court erred in granting a number of instructions. However, in each of these cases, the court modified the instructions after which there were no further objections. This failure to further object constitutes a waiver of the issue on appeal. The beneficiaries also argue that the court erred in granting a cautionary instruction advising the jury that the warning devices and warning signs were adequate as a matter of law. A court may give a cautionary instruction when a party improperly injects inadmissible evidence into a trial before a jury. Here, the instruction was properly granted due to the beneficiaries’ attempt to elicit testimony regarding the adequacy of the signals at the crossing where Martin was killed. Issue 2: Motion in limine The beneficiaries argue that the court erred in granting the Railroad's motion in limine excluding any claim, evidence, or argument that additional or different warning devices should have been installed. The court does not abuse its discretion in granting a motion in limine if the court determines that the material or evidence in question will be inadmissible at trial under the rules of evidence; and the mere offer, reference, or statements made during trial concerning the material will tend to prejudice the jury. Because the beneficiaries in this case limited their theories of recovery, any evidence or material relating to the adequacy of the warning signs would be irrelevant and therefore inadmissible. In addition, alluding that the Railroad could have constructed more adequate warning signs would most certainly have prejudiced it. Issue 3: Aerial photographs The beneficiaries argue that the court erred in refusing to admit eight aerial photographs of the crossing. The court excluded the photographs because the pictures were not produced to counsel opposite until August 2002 although the pictures were taken during 1997 and requested during discovery shortly thereafter; the pictures did not depict the view of either the vehicle or the train engineer; some pictures were taken from angles at which the road was not visible; the pictures were prejudicial; and the pictures were cumulative. To do so was not an abuse of discretion. Issue 4: Panoramic photograph The beneficiaries argue that the court erred in admitting a panoramic picture of the accident scene because the picture distorted the accident scene. Because four witnesses verified that the picture accurately depicted the view an eastbound motorist would have if they were looking towards the south, there was no abuse of discretion. Issue 5: Mathematical calculations The beneficiaries argue that the court erred in prohibiting counsel from using mathematical calculations which were not supported by expert testimony during closing arguments. The closing arguments were not included in the record nor did the beneficiaries make a proffer of the information. Therefore, the issue is not properly before the court on appeal


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court