Denham v. Holmes
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-01933-COA Linked Case(s): 2008-CA-01933-COA ; 2008-CT-01933-SCT ; 2008-CT-01933-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-23-2010 Opinion Author: Lee, P.J. Holding: Reversed and remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Closing argument - Jury instructions Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Myers, P.J., Griffis and Ishee, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Irving and Barnes, JJ. Procedural History: JNOV; Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-28-2008 Appealed from: Lafayette County Circuit Court Judge: Andrew K. Howorth Disposition: JUDGMENT ENTERED IN FAVOR OF HOLMES Case Number: L04-351 |
|
| Note: | Due to a military leave of absence, Hon. Virginia C. Carlton did not participate in this hand down. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Paula Denham and Pamela Caldwell |
TOMMY WAYNE DEFER, BOBBY T. VANCE |
|
|
| Appellee: | Adam Holmes, a Minor By and Through Donnie Holmes, His Father & Natural Guardian | JOHN BRIAN HYNEMAN | ||
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 - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Closing argument - Jury instructions |
| Summary of the Facts: | Paula Denham and Pamela Caldwell were involved in a vehicle accident with Adam Holmes. Denham and Caldwell filed a complaint against Holmes, alleging that Holmes was negligent in operating his motor vehicle. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Holmes. Denham and Caldwell appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Expert testimony Prior to trial, Denham and Caldwell designated Donald Rawson, a traffic-collision reconstructionist, as their expert witness. The parties stipulated that Rawson was properly and timely designated and that he would testify by deposition. The parties also stipulated that Rawson was qualified to give an expert opinion on the traffic accident. At trial, Holmes made an ore tenus motion to exclude Rawson’s testimony on the basis that it would not aid the jury in reaching its decision. The court granted the motion. Denham and Caldwell argue this was error. M.R.E. 702 emphasizes that it is the gate-keeping responsibility of the trial court to determine whether the expert testimony is relevant and reliable. Denham and Caldwell argue that Rawson’s testimony would have assisted the jury on technical issues such as speed, sight line, and distance between the vehicles. They argue that the exclusion of Rawson’s testimony was prejudicial because several of the jury instructions hinged on the speed of Holmes’s vehicle and distance between the vehicles. Rawson’s opinion was that Holmes could have taken evasive action to avoid the accident. The trial court excluded the testimony because it found that Rawson’s conclusions were based on “insufficient facts and data.” However, Rawson’s testimony was technical in nature and would have assisted the jury in understanding the evidence and determining the facts in issue. Also, the testimony was based on the facts available from the accident scene and should have been admitted. The jury was given no expert testimony to use to draw a conclusion as to the negligence of the parties. Without such testimony, the jury did not have sufficient information from which to reach a verdict. Issue 2: Closing argument Denham and Caldwell argue that because their expert was not allowed to testify, it was reversible error for Holmes’s counsel to comment on the lack of expert testimony in closing arguments. Denham and Caldwell argue that the comments were particularly harmful because their counsel stated during opening statements that they would present expert testimony to support their position that Holmes was speeding. The only legitimate purpose of the closing argument of counsel in a jury case is to assist the jurors in evaluating the evidence and in understanding the law and in applying it to the facts. Holmes’s counsel’s comments in closing argument were not made in furtherance of evaluating the evidence or understanding the law; rather, the comments were made to arouse prejudice in the eyes of the jury. Therefore, it was reversible error for the trial court not to instruct the jury to ignore these comments. Issue 3: Jury instructions Denham and Caldwell argue that a sentence in one of the instructions made the instruction equivalent to a contributory-negligence instruction. Mississippi is a pure comparative-negligence state. As it implied contributory negligence, the jury instruction was a misstatement of the law and was potentially misleading to the jury. This jury instruction also contradicted another instruction which asked the jury to assign a percentage of fault between the parties. The last sentence of another instruction which states that Paula Denham was not a party to the lawsuit is a clear misstatement of the facts and could have been misleading to the jury. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
