Doe v. Stegall


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 1998-CA-01058-COA
Linked Case(s): 1998-CA-01058-SCT ; 1998-CT-01058-SCT ; 1998-CA-01058-COA ; 1998-CA-01058-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 11-18-2003
Opinion Author: Bridges, J.
Holding: Reversed and Remanded

Additional Case Information: Topic: Negligence - Credibility of witness - Inconsistent statements
Judge(s) Concurring: King, P.J., Thomas, Irving and Myers, JJ.
Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Griffis, J.
Non Participating Judge(s): McMillin, C.J., Southwick, P.J., Lee and Chandler, JJ.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-28-1998
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: W. Swan Yerger
Disposition: GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case Number: 94410CIV
  Consolidated: 2001-CA-01674-COA Wonda Doe v. Gaines L. Stegall, Individually and d/b/a Nottingham Place Apartments and Betty Stegall; Hinds Circuit Court 1st District; LC Case #: 251-94-410; Ruling Date: 09/25/2001; Ruling Judge: W. Swan Yerger

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Wonda Doe




SHANE F. LANGSTON RICK D. PATT



 

Appellee: Gaines L. Stegall, Individually and d/b/a Nottingham Place Apartments and Betty Stegall JASON HOOD STRONG ROBERT S. ADDISON EDWARD C. TAYLOR  

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 - Credibility of witness - Inconsistent statements

Summary of the Facts: This case was previously before the Mississippi Supreme Court in Doe v. Stegall d/b/a Nottingham Place Apartments, 757 So. 2d 201 (Miss. 2000). The central issue before the Mississippi Supreme Court and the central issue on the instant appeal is whether Wonda Doe presented evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact relative to the negligence of defendant Nottingham in allowing the burglar/rapist Michael Herrin access to a master key used to enter Doe's apartment. The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in excluding the deposition testimony of Herrin and the case was remanded. After remand, Nottingham noticed a third deposition of Herrin. Herrin refused to provide any further substantive testimony and to authenticate or provide any testimony regarding a letter that had been sent to the trial judge. Because of the lack of response, the judge again excluded Herrin's deposition testimony and granted summary judgment in favor of Nottingham. Doe appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: In Doe v. Stegall d/b/a Nottingham Place Apartments, 757 So. 2d 201 (Miss. 2000), the Supreme Court decided that Herrin's deposition testimony should be considered to establish a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment. The jury is responsible for judging the credibility of witnesses and the weight that should be attached to their testimony. Because Herrin's inconsistent statements point to the weight and credibility to be afforded his testimony which are matters for the jury to determine, the case is reversed for the purpose of trial before a jury. Even if the trial court questioned the credibility of Herrin and felt that the evidence presented would be meager and possibly insufficient, the court should have allowed the issue of liability to be deliberated on by the jury and considered the evidence’s sufficiency after the verdict.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court