Birrages v. Ill Cent. R.R. Co.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-00846-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-00846-COA |
|
| Oral Argument: | 06-13-2006 | |
* 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 Link Opinion Date: 10-03-2006 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wrongful death - Proximate causation - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - Proper lookout claim - Motion to reopen case Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS AND ISHEE, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): BARNES, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-14-2005 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Bobby DeLaughter Disposition: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT GRANTED. Case Number: 252-2003-24 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | CHARLES EDWARD BIRRAGES, JR.,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE HEIRS
OF CHARLES EDWARD BIRRAGES, SR. |
QUINTON LABOTT JAMES, SUZANNE GRIGGINS KEYS, JAMES RICHARD DAVIS, ISAAC K. BYRD |
||
| Appellee: | ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, ROBERT BRYANT AND EDDIE PICKETT | CHARLES HENRY RUSSELL, BENJAMIN NOAH PHILLEY, CHARLES T. OZIER |
|
|
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: | Wrongful death - Proximate causation - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - Proper lookout claim - Motion to reopen case |
| Summary of the Facts: | A train collided with a dump truck. The driver of the dump truck, Charles Birrages, Sr., died. His son, Charles Birrages, Jr., sued Illinois Central Railroad Co., the conductor, and the engineer for wrongful death. The defendants requested a directed verdict after Charles presented his case-in-chief. The court granted the motion, and Charles appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Proximate causation Charles argues that the court erred when it found that he presented no proof that the collision was the proximate cause of Mr. Birrages’s death. In order to prevail in a wrongful death action, the plaintiff must establish that the conduct of the defendant proximately caused the injury and death in question. Charles first argues that the evidence in the form of testimony from the conductor and the engineer, as well as the accident report, was sufficient to create a jury question. However, nothing in their testimony suggests that Mr. Birrages actually died as a result of the collision. Charles also argues that the defendants never raised the lack of proximate cause of Mr. Birrages’s death and therefore the issue is waived. However, Charles offers no authority for his argument. Failure to comply with M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) renders an argument procedurally barred. Charles argues that ICR stipulated in its unsuccessful motion for summary judgment that Mr. Birrages was killed in the collision. Failure to raise an issue in a trial court causes operation of a procedural bar on appeal. Charles waived this issue by failing to raise it in the trial court. Charles also argues that the accident report contained sufficient evidence that Mr. Birrages died as a result of the collision. The accident report, which was introduced in evidence in unredacted form for the jury to review, contained an indication that Mr. Birrages was killed in the accident. Viewing the accident report in the light most favorable to Charles, a reasonable juror could conclude that the collision caused Mr. Birrages’s death. Therefore, the circuit court’s finding that a directed verdict was appropriate based on Charles’s failure to prove Mr. Birrages died as a result of the collision is reversed. Issue 2: Proper lookout Charles argues that he presented a jury question on his lookout claim in that his expert testified “that the sight distance at this crossing was not adequate for Mr. Birrages to be able to see the train to avoid a collision.” Whether Mr. Birrages could see the train as it approached has nothing to do with the duty of the conductor and engineer to maintain a lookout for motorists. The expert’s testimony was relevant towards Charles’ claim that vegetation obstructed Mr. Birrages’ view, not whether the conductor and engineer maintained a vigilant lookout. There was no evidence from which a reasonable juror could find that Charles presented a prima facie case of negligence as to his failure to maintain a proper lookout claim. Issue 3: Motion to reopen case Charles argues that the trial judge erred when he prevented Charles from moving to reopen his case- in- chief. However, Charles never requested to reopen his case. He merely asked to “make a record.” Therefore, the judge did not abuse his discretion. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
