McFarland v. Entergy Miss., Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2003-CT-00538-SCT Linked Case(s): 2003-CA-00538-COA ; 2003-CT-00538-SCT ; 2003-CT-00538-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-06-2005 Opinion Author: SMITH, Holding: Affirmed in part; Reversed and Rendered in part |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Standard of care imposed on utility companies - Notice of sagging line Judge(s) Concurring: Easley, Carlson and Dickinson, JJ., Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J., Dissenting Author : Graves, J., Randolph, J., Procedural History: JNOV Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY Writ of Certiorari: yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-07-2003 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: The jury returned a verdict for the McFarland in the amount of $300,000.00. Then JNOV in favor of Defendant. The trial court then granted Entergy’s Motion for JNOV, and held that the motion for new trial was granted in the event that the JNOV was overturned on appeal. Case Number: 251-97-166 c/v |
|
| Note: | The Supreme court affirmed part of the Court of Appeals decision and reversed part of the decision. See the original COA opinion at http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO21711.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | DEBORAH McFARLAND |
ROBERT W. SNEED |
||
| Appellee: | ENTERGY MISSISSIPPI, INC. | JOHN H. DUNBAR, WALTER ALAN DAVIS |
|
|
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 - Standard of care imposed on utility companies - Notice of sagging line |
| Summary of the Facts: | Thomas McFarland sued Entergy Mississippi, Inc. for injuries McFarland received while driving a truck which collided with a sagging transmission line maintained by Entergy, in Leland. A motion for directed verdict by Entergy was denied, and the jury returned a verdict for McFarland in the amount of $300,000. The trial court granted Entergy’s Motion for JNOV, and held that the motion for new trial was granted in the event that the JNOV was overturned on appeal. McFarland appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of the JNOV and remanded for a new trial. Both McFarland and Entergy filed petitions for certiorari which the Supreme Court granted. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Court of Appeals decision stated that “[t]he public policy of this State requires ‘utilities to exercise a very high degree of care in protecting the public from the dangers of electricity’” McFarland argues that the Court of Appeals was correct to impose this higher standard of care upon Entergy, but also argues that at trial Entergy was only held to a reasonable care standard, and therefore this issue is irrelevant. Utility companies should be held to a reasonable standard, i.e. they should exercise the care that is reasonable in like circumstances. The degree of care that is reasonable will either increase or decrease based upon various circumstances. When circumstances involve live wires, the reasonable standard of care is elevated to one of a high degree. However, if electricity is not present, the utility company should exercise reasonable care. After an examination of the record, it is apparent that the jury was instructed that Entergy was to be held to a reasonable standard of care. While the Court of Appeals erroneously imposed this higher standard, this standard had no impact at trial because the jury was properly instructed that Entergy was to be held to a reasonable care standard. McFarland argues the facts in this case are sufficient to impose a duty upon Entergy. However, utility companies only have a duty to eliminate foreseeable danger. Whether Entergy owed a duty to McFarland turns on the question of whether Entergy had notice of the dangerous condition. The Court of Appeals relied heavily upon the allegation of “the fact that this transmission line had been down for 5 days.” However, the record reveals that the line was not down, but rather was sagging approximately 8 feet above the road. The record also reflects that it was a physical impossibility for Entergy to have known where each and every downed power line was located just days after this ice storm. This is true even though the record reveals that Entergy conducted a helicopter flyover survey of the disaster area which failed to reveal the sagging line in question. The record shows that the line was sagging at most two days prior to the accident; any additional time is mere speculation. Entergy has consistently denied any notice whatsoever in this case. The trial judge held the only evidence McFarland provided indicating any notice was the testimony of a former deputy concerning an unidentified person sitting in a truck having an MP&L logo and parked on the side of the roadway near a substation. There is no proof that this person was an Entergy employee, a service man, or that he was even the driver of the truck. No proof was offered as to this person’s direct or apparent authority; therefore, the judge correctly held the evidence was insufficient to establish notice to Entergy. Also, under the facts of this case, a two day delay was not a sufficient period of time to charge Entergy with constructive notice of the sagging line. Notice only becomes a factual jury question when there is sufficient evidence presented for a reasonable juror to find in the plaintiff’s favor. Here, Entergy did not receive notice of the sagging line. McFarland has failed to prove a breach, let alone the duty itself. The Court of Appeals’ finding that Entergy exercised no care whatsoever for the public users of highways absolutely ignores and distorts the overwhelming evidence. The fact of the matter is that Entergy did amazingly well in response time and exhibited great skill, care and diligence in attempting to restore power to a vast area of the state which suffered a very rare and unusual major disaster. The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that there was enough evidence to support a jury verdict for either party. When considering all of the evidence in the light most favorable to McFarland, there is insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict in his favor for the reason previously discussed. Therefore, the trial court’s grant of the JNOV must stand. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
