Hearn v. Brown


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2002-CA-01029-COA
Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-01029-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 09-23-2003
Opinion Author: McMillin, C.J.
Holding: Reversed and Remanded

Additional Case Information: Topic: Personal injury - Premises liability - JNOV - Conditional new trial - M.R.C.P. 50(c)
Judge(s) Concurring: Southwick, P.J., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Irving, J.
Dissent Joined By : King, P.J.
Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Irving, J.
Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: King, P.J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 06-04-2002
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: W. Swan Yerger
Disposition: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES DISMISSED ON MOTION FOR JNOV
Case Number: 251-98-220 CIV

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Eric Hearn




BARRY H. POWELL



 

Appellee: Harley Brown, Jr. JEFFREY LEE CARSON JAMES D. HOLLAND  

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 - Premises liability - JNOV - Conditional new trial - M.R.C.P. 50(c)

Summary of the Facts: Eric Hearn brought an action against Harley Brown, Jr. when Hearn fell through what he contended was a rotten portion of the roof to Brown's residence. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Hearn in the amount of $100,000. The court ordered the entry of a judgment in favor of Brown notwithstanding the jury’s verdict and in the alternative, granted Brown’s motion for a new trial on liability. Hearn appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: JNOV Hearn argues that the court erred in directing entry of a verdict against him because the evidence was not such that a reasonable jury fairly assessing the evidence could only find in favor of Brown. Hearn’s theory of recovery was that, even though he was on the premises as a business invitee specifically because of his specialized skills in regard to roofing, the property owner nevertheless had a duty to warn him of special or hidden dangers known to that property owner to exist. There was evidence to support a reasonable inference that Brown was on actual notice of a portion of his roof that presented a particular hazard that went beyond the general danger associated with walking about on the roof of a house. There was also evidence tending to show that Brown was unaware of a rotten area on the roof and that Hearn’s fall arose out of the fact that he lost his footing for no reason attributable to any fault on the part of Brown. In such situations, the jury sits as finders of fact and here, the jury resolved these disputed issues of fact in favor of Hearn. Therefore, the court erred in granting Brown’s motion for JNOV. Issue 2: New trial Hearn argues that the court erred in making a provisional ruling with regard to a new trial. An order for new trial in a civil action based upon any factor other than the excessiveness or inadequacy of the verdict amount is an interlocutory determination that is not the proper subject of an appeal. The language of M.R.C.P. 50(c) that “[i]n case the motion for a new trial has been conditionally granted and the judgment notwithstanding the verdict is reversed on appeal, the new trial shall proceed unless the appellate court has otherwise ordered” has not altered the interlocutory nature of a decision by the trial court to grant a new trial motion based on its decision that the verdict as to liability is against the weight of the evidence. The order for a new trial, no longer conditional by virtue of the decision of this court on the JNOV, necessarily stands beyond the jurisdiction of this court to disturb at this juncture of the proceeding.


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