Tentoni v. Slayden
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-00529-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-00529-COA ; 2005-CT-00529-SCT ; 2005-CT-00529-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-12-2006 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Reversed & Rendered (Liability) & Remanded (Dam.) |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Peremptory instruction on liability - Closing argument Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Dissenting Author : SOUTHWICK, J. Dissent Joined By : BARNES, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-30-2004 Appealed from: MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Samac Richardson Disposition: JURY VERDICT FOR APPELLEE/DEFENDANT Case Number: CI-2000-0005 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JACKIE TENTONI, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS NEXT FRIEND ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILDREN,
MELANIE TENTONI, JOHNATHAN TENTONI AND PHILLIP TENTONI |
JOSEPH S. GATLIN, III |
||
| Appellee: | WARREN W. SLAYDEN | SHELLY G. BURNS |
|
|
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 - Peremptory instruction on liability - Closing argument |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jackie Tentoni, individually and on behalf of her minor children Melanie, Johnathan, and Phillip, filed suit against Warren Slayden for personal injuries arising from a car accident. The jury found for Slayden. Jackie appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Peremptory instruction on liability Jackie argues she was entitled to a peremptory instruction on liability, because Slayden was negligent per se, and he admitted causation and certain damages. It is the duty of every driver to see that which is in plain view, open, and apparent; to take notice of an obvious danger; and to be on the alert so as to avoid a collision with objects, vehicles, and others using the highway. Moreover, it is the duty of the driver of an automobile to take reasonably proper steps to avoid an accident or injury to persons or property after having knowledge of the danger. Slayden admitted that it was raining and the road was wet. He admitted that he was aware of the dangers of hydroplaning. Nevertheless, he testified that he did not slow down. He maintained a speed near the posted speed limit. He admitted that he lost control of his vehicle when his car hit a patch of standing water. He ignored the danger and as a result lost control of his car. This testimony went undisputed. Therefore, Jackie was entitled to a peremptory instruction on negligence. Additionally, since Slayden admitted causation, Jackie was entitled to a directed verdict on liability. The case is remanded for a new trial to assess the proper damages. Issue 2: Closing argument Jackie argues that the verdict was the product of bias, passion and prejudice. As evidence, she points to the defense counsel’s appeal for sympathy for Slayden and vilification of Jackie. An attorney is afforded wide latitude in closing arguments, so long as she keeps fairly within the evidence. Appeals to passion or prejudice are always improper and should never be allowed. Furthermore, a jury’s verdict may not be the product of sympathy. At the hearing on the motion for new trial, Slayden’s attorney admitted that the comments she made were irrelevant to the issue of liability. On their face, the statements appear to be intended to ignite the jury’s passions in favor of Slayden and against the Tentonis–Jackie, in particular. On remand, Slayden’s counsel is instructed not to repeat this conduct. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
