Lift-All Company, Inc. v. Warner
| Docket Number: | 2005-IA-00142-SCT Linked Case(s): 2005-M-00142-SCT2005-IA-00142-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 08-08-2006 | |
* 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). |
||
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-12-2006 Opinion Author: WALLER, P.J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Weight of evidence - Superseding cause instruction Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., EASLEY AND DICKINSON, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: RANDOLPH, J. CONCURS IN PART WITHOUT SEPARATE WRIT Dissenting Author : Carlson, J. GRAVES, J. JOINED BY DIAZ, J. & CARLSON, J. JOINS IN PART Dissent Joined By : Diaz and Graves, JJ. Dissenting Author : Graves, J. Dissent Joined By : Graves, J., Dissents with Separate Written Diaz, J. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: RANDOLPH, J. Concurs in Result Only: COBB, P.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-06-2005 Appealed from: Adams County Circuit Court Judge: Lillie Blackmon Sanders Disposition: Jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellant, however, court granted new trial Case Number: 02KV0070(S) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | LIFT-ALL COMPANY, INC. |
EDWIN S. GAULT, JR., PHILIP ELMER CARBY |
||
| Appellee: | KENNETH DANIEL WARNER | WES W. PETERS |
|
|
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 - Weight of evidence - Superseding cause instruction |
| Summary of the Facts: | Kenneth Warner was injured when a very heavy concrete slab fell on him, completely severing his arm. He sued Lift-All Company, Inc., which makes slings to carry heavy loads, alleging that the sling used to lift the concrete slab was defective. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Lift-All. The circuit court granted a new trial, holding that she erred in giving the jury an instruction on superseding cause and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The Supreme Court granted Lift-All permission to bring this interlocutory appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Weight of evidence Trial courts have the authority to set aside a jury verdict where, in the exercise of their sound discretion, they regard such a verdict as being contrary to the substantial weight of the evidence. Cases where there are conflicts of evidence presented at trial are to be resolved by the jury. From reviewing the record, it is obvious that the evidence was not overwhelmingly in favor of either side. This case presents a classic jury question – whether the sling broke, as Warner says, or whether the sling was cut, as Lift-All says. Faced with this conflicting evidence, the jury sided with Lift-All. Lift-All presented evidence of quality and weight, including that of expert witnesses. The testimony was supported by photographs which clearly showed the condition of a test sling which had broken due to weight, of a test sling which had broken due to cutting, and of the actual sling which broke at the construction site. Therefore, the verdict should not have been disturbed. Issue 2: Superseding cause instruction Warner argues that the superseding cause jury instruction should not have been given because the proffered jury instruction did not correctly state the law, the facts of the case did not support a superseding cause instruction, superseding cause instructions should be given only if the cause of the injury was unforeseeable, and superseding cause is an question of law for the court to decide, not a question of fact for the jury. The question of whether an act of negligence is a foreseeable superseding cause requires an examination of the sequence of events leading to the injury. All of the events which led up to the injury in this case were at least arguably normal consequences of the actions taken by the two construction workers instead of extraordinary consequences. One of the factors to consider in determining whether an intervening act in the chain of events becomes a superseding cause is the fact that its operation or the consequences thereof appear after the event to be extraordinary rather than normal in view of the circumstances existing at the time of its operation. Therefore, the superseding cause instruction should not have been given. However, this error is harmless in light of the fact that the jury’s finding that the sling was not defective. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
