Martin v. St. Dominic-Jackson Mem'l Hosp.
| Docket Number: | 2009-CT-01365-SCT Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-01365-COA ; 2009-CA-01365-COA ; 2009-CT-01365-SCT ; 2009-CT-01365-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-05-2012 Opinion Author: Pierce, J. Holding: The judgment of the Court of Appeals is Reversed and the judgment of the Hinds County Circuit Court is Reinstated and Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Proximate causation - Cause in fact - Medical expert Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson, P.J., and Randolph, J. Non Participating Judge(s): Chandler and King, JJ. Dissenting Author : Lamar, J. Dissent Joined By : Dickinson, P.J., and Kitchens, J. Procedural History: Directed Verdict Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY Writ of Certiorari: Granted Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-14-2009 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: GRANTED DIRECTED VERDICT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT Case Number: 251-06-1261CIV |
|
| Note: | The Supreme Court reinstated the trial court's directed verdict finding that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the circuit court and remanding for a new trial. The Court of Appeals decision can be found at http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO71020.pdf . | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Elizabeth Martin |
MICAH BENJAMIN DUTRO
RAMEL LEMAR COTTON |
||
| Appellee: | St. Dominic-Jackson Memorial Hospital | JOHN ERNEST WADE, JR. JONATHAN ROBERT WERNE |
|
|
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 - Proximate causation - Cause in fact - Medical expert |
| Summary of the Facts: | While attending a group-therapy session at St. Dominic’s Hospital, Elizabeth Martin slipped and fell on a floor while it was being waxed. She alleged she received injury to both knees. Martin sued SDH for negligence regarding her injuries allegedly caused by the fall. At the conclusion of the trial, SDH moved for a directed verdict, claiming that Martin had not provided sufficient evidence to establish the proximate cause of her injury. The circuit court granted SDH’s motion for a directed verdict, and Martin appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the circuit court and remanded the case for a new trial, finding that Martin had provided enough evidence to create a question of fact for the jury to make a determination based on the totality of the evidence. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Court of Appeals found that Martin had produced sufficient credible evidence that created a question of fact, and thus, a directed verdict should not have been granted. However, an essential part of the claim in a personal tort case is to demonstrate, not only the extent of the injury, but also that the negligence of the defendant was the proximate cause of the injury. In order to incur liability when a party is negligent, that negligence also must be the proximate cause of the injury. In order for an act of negligence to proximately cause the damage, the fact finder must find that negligence was both the cause in fact and legal cause of the damage. The cause in fact of an injury is that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the injury would not have occurred. Martin attempted to prove that SDH’s actions were the proximate cause of her injuries through the testimony of Dr. Gandy. However, SDH argues that Dr. Gandy did not testify to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Martin’s knee injuries were caused by her fall. Medical testimony is not probative unless it speaks in terms of probabilities rather than possibilities. The intent of the law is that if a physician cannot form an opinion with sufficient certainty so as to make a medical judgment, neither can a jury use that information to reach a decision. Dr. Gandy testified that, in older individuals like Martin, the injuries she sustained were from either wear and tear or an injury. Further, Dr. Gandy informed Martin that her injuries were from either wear and tear or an injury. The record is void of any assertion from any medical expert that Martin’s injuries were related to her fall at SDH or were an aggravation of a preexisting condition. Martin’s evidence and testimony presented at trial simply show that either her arthritis or the fall caused her injury in the left knee. Therefore, a directed verdict was proper, because Dr. Gandy’s opinion did not rise to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
