Spann v. Shuqualak Lumber Co., Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-00807-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-11-2008 Opinion Author: WALLER, P.J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Negligence - Unreasonably dangerous condition - Cause in fact Judge(s) Concurring: DIAZ, P.J., EASLEY, CARLSON, DICKINSON, RANDOLPH AND LAMAR, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): SMITH, C.J. Concurs in Result Only: GRAVES, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-11-2007 Appealed from: NOXUBEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: James T. Kitchens, Jr. Disposition: The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Shuqualak Lumber Company. Case Number: 2005-0107 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | FRANCES SPANN, YOLANDA THOMAS AND DEMETREAL BARBER |
W. HOWARD GUNN |
|
|
| Appellee: | SHUQUALAK LUMBER CO., INC. | MITZI LEASHA GEORGE, TIMOTHY DALE CRAWLEY, ROBERT LEE GRANT | ||
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: | Negligence - Unreasonably dangerous condition - Cause in fact |
| Summary of the Facts: | Following an accident, Frances Spann, Yolanda Thomas, and Demetreal Barber filed suit against Shuqualak Lumber Company, Inc., asserting that the steam from Shuqualak’s plant caused the accident. The complaint named Shuqualak as the sole defendant and claimed it had a duty to warn about the potential driving hazard and to reasonably abate the problem. Shuqualak filed a motion for summary judgment which the court granted. The plaintiffs appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in finding that no genuine issue of material fact remained as to the negligence of Shuqualak. To survive summary judgment, Spann bears the burden of producing evidence sufficient to establish the existence of the conventional tort elements of duty, breach, causation, and damages. Shuqualak had a duty to refrain from creating an unreasonably dangerous condition that impeded drivers’ vision. Testimony conflicts as to whether the “dense fog, steam, and/or smoke ” released from Shuqualak’s plant actually was present at the time of the accident. The plaintiffs stated that the steam was present at the time of the accident. Shuqualak, while not admitting that the steam was present at that particular time, denied neither that its plant emitted steam nor the potential for this steam to drift across the roadway. Even if such conditions were present, a question of fact remains as to whether the steam caused an unreasonably dangerous condition. A defendant’s negligence is the “cause-in-fact” where the fact-finder concludes that, but for the defendant’s negligence, the injury would not have occurred. Both parties gave evidence that it was raining and cloudy on the day of the accident. Whether the weather or the steam was the cause-in-fact of the accident is a question within the province of a jury. Furthermore, if cause-in-fact is established, Shuqualak might reasonably foresee that an automobile accident could occur. Thus, the case is reversed and remanded. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
