Kidd v. McRae's Store P'ship
| Docket Number: | 2005-CP-01918-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-13-2007 Opinion Author: BARNES, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Weight of evidence - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 70 Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-19-2005 Appealed from: LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Thomas J. Gardner Disposition: JURY FOUND FOR DEFENDANT Case Number: CV03-107(G)L |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | BARBARA KIDD |
BARBARA KIDD (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | MCRAE’S STORES PARTNERSHIP | ROBERT F. STACY, TERRY DWAYNE LITTLE |
|
|
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 - Weight of evidence - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 70 |
| Summary of the Facts: | After tripping and falling at McRae’s Department Store, Barbara Kidd filed suit against McRae’s seeking $750,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000,000 in punitive damages. The jury returned a verdict for McRae’s, and Kidd appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Weight of evidence Kidd argues that because the area of tile where she tripped was 1/16 of an inch out of alignment with surrounding tiles, this was a dangerous condition. Since McRae’s knew of this height differential since 1989 and did not repair it, Kidd argues that McRae’s breached its duty of care to provide a safe floor for its customers. Kidd’s arguments are issues which the jury properly decided at trial. A reasonable jury could infer through the evidence presented, not to mention their common sense, that the height differential of a little over a dime between two tiles certainly does not constitute an unreasonably dangerous condition. There was no record of anybody falling or complaining about the floor since its installation, thus a reasonable jury could infer that tiles differing in height by 1/16 of an inch do not create a dangerous condition. A reasonable jury could find that McRae’s did not breach its duty of care to Kidd. A reasonable jury could infer that not watching where she was going was the proximate cause of Kidd’s fall. Issue 2: Deposition testimony Kidd argues that the court erred in limiting the deposition testimony of her doctor regarding future medical expenses--specifically, the cost of surgeries for injuries sustained during her fall. M.R.E. 702 states that if expert testimony will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence and the witness is qualified, the testimony will be admitted. Yet, when an expert’s opinion is not based on a reasonable degree of medical certainty, or the opinion is articulated in a way that does not make the opinion probable, the jury cannot use that information to make a decision. The court did not err in limiting the deposition testimony of the doctor regarding the costs of the surgeries because he never expressed an opinion to a degree of medical certainty that Kidd would ever require these surgeries. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
