Rhaly v. Waste Mgmt. of Miss., Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-01085-COA Linked Case(s): 2008-CA-01085-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-11-2010 Opinion Author: Myers, P.J. Holding: Reversed and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Property damage - Foreseeability - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-06-2008 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED TO DEFENDANT Case Number: 251-02-1822CIV |
|
| Note: | Due to a military leave of absence, Hon. Virginia C. Carlton did not participate in this hand down. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Henry Crawford Rhaly, Jr., John Thomas Rhaly, William Dewitt Rhaly, Bill Alan Wilson, Linda Gay Wilson, Mary Sue Creel, and Hilda Louise Ferron |
WILLIAM JOSEPH KERLEY |
||
| Appellee: | Waste Management of Mississippi, Inc. | DAVID L. AYERS, TOM P. CALHOUN III, ANDREA LA’VERNE FORD EDNEY, COREY DONALD HINSHAW |
|
|
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: | Property damage - Foreseeability - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Henry Crawford Rhaly, Jr., John Thomas Rhaly, William DeWitt Rhaly, Bill Alan Wilson, Linda Gay Wilson, Mary Sue Creel, and Hilda Louise Ferron were owners of property in Jackson, Mississippi, located near Eubank’s Creek, an improved drainage ditch. The owners brought suit against Waste Management of Mississippi, Inc., alleging that they had suffered damage to their properties and related injuries from two separate flood events caused by Waste Management’s negligence in placing a dumpster too close to a ditch. The trial court ultimately granted summary judgment to Waste Management, finding that the injury alleged was not foreseeable and that the owners had produced no evidence that the allegedly negligent placement of the dumpster had caused either flood. The owners appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Foreseeability The trial court found no genuine issue of material fact as to two elements of the owners’ negligence claim: duty and proximate cause. The trial court found that the injury suffered by the owners – the flooding of their properties – was not a foreseeable consequence of the dumpster’s placement along the banks of the ditch. The trial court concluded, therefore, that Waste Management owed no duty to the owners not to place it in such a position. Likewise, the trial court concluded that the placement of the dumpster, even assuming it was a cause in fact of the injury, was not the proximate or legal cause of the unforeseeable injury suffered. The rule of law is that a defendant may not be held liable for the unforeseeable consequences of his negligent act. The trial court in this case confused foreseeability with notice of a dangerous condition in premises liability cases. This is not a premises liability case, and notice is not the issue. The owners were not required to show that Waste Management was actually aware of the danger of flooding presented by the placement of the dumpster. Instead, at issue is whether Waste Management should have reasonably foreseen that the dumpster, if placed on the banks of the ditch, could be carried into the ditch by runoff or rising water, obstruct the ditch, and thereby cause or intensify flooding of nearby properties. Foreseeability presents a question for the jury where reasonable minds may differ and sufficient evidence of negligence is presented. As a matter of law, Waste Management owed a duty to use reasonable care in placing its dumpster so as to avoid injury to nearby property owners. This case presents at least a jury question as to whether Waste Management acted reasonably under all the circumstances. Issue 2: Expert testimony To establish that the dumpster had in fact caused the flooding damage to their properties, the owners offered the affidavit of an expert in the field of engineering. The trial court found the expert’s findings as to causation inadmissible, because they had no factual basis. The trial court found this because no witnesses had actually observed the dumpster in the ditch blocking the flow of water during either flood event. Under M.R.E. 702, the witness must be qualified by virtue of his or her knowledge, skill, experience or education and the witness's scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge must assist the trier of fact in understanding or deciding a fact in issue. The owners argue that a factual basis was established through circumstantial evidence. They cite to the deposition testimony of several witnesses, who testified that in the days after each of the relevant flood events, they observed the dumpster in the ditch, against the bridge, covered with debris. Photographs were also entered into the record, showing a Waste Management dumpster in the ditch at the State Street bridge in the days after the 1983, 2002, and 2003 flood events. The owners argue that was sufficient to create an inference that the dumpster had been present in the ditch at the time of the flooding. Giving the owners the benefit of all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the deposition testimony of other witnesses, a sufficient factual basis existed for the expert’s opinion as to causation. The trial court also faulted the expert’s causation opinion for relying on a finding of a “partial” obstruction of the ditch, without any further explanation. The expert’s opinion was offered to show that the obstruction observed was sufficiently large to be a substantial factor in causing the floods. He stated that he reached this conclusion after observing the scene, taking measurements of the ditch opening under the State Street bridge and of a comparable dumpster, studying the photographs and deposition testimonies of witnesses who had observed the scene after the relevant floods, and analyzing past rainfall patterns and flood history of the area. Nothing in the record suggests that this methodology was flawed or that the expert was not qualified to render such an opinion. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
