Entergy Miss., Inc. v. Bolden
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-00265-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-25-2003 Opinion Author: Smith, P.J. Holding: Affirmed as to Liability; Judgment Remitted from $532,000 to $232,000, and Affirmed as Remitted, Conditioned on Acceptance by Brenda Bolden Within Ten (10) Days of the Final Judgment of this Court. Otherwise, the Judgment is Vacated, and the Case is Remanded for a New Trial as to Damages Only. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Negligence instruction - Special hazard instruction - Section 63-3-505 - Contributory negligence instruction - Remittitur - Closing argument Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Waller, Cobb and Carlson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Graves, J., Concurs in Part and Dissents in Part Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-20-2001 Appealed from: Sunflower County Circuit Court Judge: Richard Smith Disposition: Awarded the Appellee $532,000 in damages. Case Number: 98-0096 |
|
| Note: | PITTMAN, C.J., WALLER, COBB AND CARLSON, JJ., CONCUR. GRAVES, J., CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. McRAE, P.J., CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY EASLEY, J. DIAZ, J., NOT PARTICIPATING. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Entergy Mississippi, Inc. |
JAMES LAWTON ROBERTSON
LAURA G. McKINLEY |
||
| Appellee: | Brenda Bolden | RICHARD BENZ, JR. |
|
|
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 - Negligence instruction - Special hazard instruction - Section 63-3-505 - Contributory negligence instruction - Remittitur - Closing argument |
| Summary of the Facts: | Brenda Bolden brought suit against Entergy Mississippi, Inc., after she was involved in an accident with W.L. Strawbridge, an Entergy employee. The first trial ended in a mistrial. In the second trial, a jury awarded Bolden $532,000. Entergy appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Negligence instruction Entergy argues that the court erred in instructing the jury that Strawbridge was negligent as a matter of law and that Entergy was therefore negligent. M.R.C.P. 50(a) allows questions to be removed from the jury’s consideration when there exists no factual question for it to resolve. Here, no reasonable juror could have concluded from the evidence presented that Strawbridge was not negligent. Unrebutted testimony established that Strawbridge was negligent in crossing in front of Bolden at the intersection where the collision occurred. Issue 2: Special hazard instruction Entergy argues that the court erred in denying its special hazard instruction, because a motorist has the duty to reduce her speed when a special hazard exists and a motorist’s duty to decrease speed when faced with a special hazard is a function of statute and failure to comply with the statute is negligence as a matter of law. Section 63-3-505 provides that the operator of a motor vehicle must decrease speed when special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic. Although the statute does not define special hazard, it does not provide that a momentarily inattentive driver is a special hazard for which another driver must reduce speed. Because the evidence in this case does not support the requested instruction, the court did not err. Issue 3: Contributory negligence instruction Entergy argues that the court erred in refusing to grant a contributory negligence jury instruction. Because Entergy offers no authority in support of its assertion, the issue is procedurally barred on appeal. Issue 4: Remittitur Entergy argues that the court erred in failing to grant a remittitur. A remittitur is appropriate when the jury was influenced by bias, prejudice, or passion, or the damages were contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The most generous award of special damages would result in Bolden obtaining roughly $41,286. The total awarded in this case adds almost $500,000 to that sum for future pain and suffering. Because the scant testimony offered in support of damages for pain and suffering does not justify such a large award of damages, the court abused its discretion in failing to grant Entergy a remittitur reducing the verdict from $532,000 to $232,000. Issue 5: Closing argument Entergy argues that Bolden’s closing arguments were wholly unsupported by facts in evidence and were designed to incite bias, passion, or prejudice on the part of the jury. An issue is waived on appeal where there was no contemporaneous objection. Here, Entergy’s counsel did not object. In order to reverse under the plain error doctrine, the reviewing court must find both error and harm. Here, the statements claimed as error by Entergy are not harmful. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
