HWCC-Tunica, Inc. d/b/a Hollywood Casino v. Brenda Jenkins
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-00267-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-CT-00267-SCT ; 2003-CT-00267-SCT ; 2003-CT-00267-SCT ; 2003-CA-00267-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-31-2004 Opinion Author: Lee, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Directed verdict - Jury instruction - Special verdict - Oral instructions - M.R.C.P. 51(c) Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges, P.J., Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Barnes, J. Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-26-2002 Appealed from: TUNICA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Al Smith Disposition: VERDICT AND DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,000 FOR THE PLAINTIFF Case Number: 99-0187-AS |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | HWCC-TUNICA, INC. D/B/A HOLLYWOOD CASINO |
JOSEPH WALKER SIMS
ALFRED THOMAS TUCKER |
||
| Appellee: | BRENDA JENKINS | GENE BARTON |
|
|
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 - Directed verdict - Jury instruction - Special verdict - Oral instructions - M.R.C.P. 51(c) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Brenda Jenkins slipped and fell down two stairs at the Hollywood Casino. She filed suit alleging that Hollywood was negligent because the stairs were too narrow, that the carpet covering the stairs prevented her from negotiating the distance between the stairs and the floor, and that the stairs were poorly lit. The court submitted a special verdict form to the jury. Shortly after the jury convened, it returned with a verdict finding that both Hollywood and Jenkins were negligent, and assigning 100% fault to Jenkins. This verdict did not assign any damages to Jenkins. The court orally instructed the jury as to how the form should be completed, and the jury reconvened. A few minutes later the jury returned with another verdict. This second attempt found that Hollywood was negligent and that Jenkins was not negligent. The jury found Hollywood to be 100% at fault and found that Jenkins was not at fault; however, the jury did not assign any damages against Hollywood. Once again, the court re-instructed the jury as to how the special verdict form should be returned, and the jury reconvened. The final verdict found Hollywood negligent, and Jenkins not negligent. Hollywood was found to be 100% at fault, while Jenkins was found to be 0% at fault. The jury granted Jenkins $100,000 in damages against Hollywood. Hollywood appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Directed verdict Hollywood argues that the court erred in failing to direct a verdict in its favor. Considering the evidence in a light most favorable to Jenkins, it is clear that reasonable jurors could have found Hollywood was negligent, either because the lighting in the area was poor, the steps presented a slippery surface, or the steps were too narrow to negotiate safely. The facts and the testimony are not so one-sided as to require that a reasonable jury reach a contrary decision. Issue 2: Jury instruction Hollywood argues that one of the jury instructions contained a number of substantive errors. Hollywood did not object to the jury instruction as amended. Therefore, the court is without the authority to consider Hollywood's arguments. Issue 3: Special verdict Hollywood argues that the court erred in resubmitting the special verdict to the jury with oral instructions. M.R.C.P. 51(c) provides that with the exception of cautionary instructions and instructions relating to trial procedure, the duty and function of the trial and for the purpose of generally acquainting the jury with the nature of the case, all instructions shall be in writing. Where a special verdict yields conflicting responses, a new trial is required. Therefore, the judge abused his discretion in twice orally re-instructing the jury. The conflicting special verdicts, coupled with the series of erroneous oral instructions constitutes reversible error. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
