in the court of appeals of the state - Mississippi Supreme Court

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2. Multiply the sum of money you determined as Riley Strickland’s damages by the percentage figure representing the proportion of Riley Strickland’s causal negligence; 3. Subtract the result of your multiplication from the sum you first determined to be Riley Strickland’s damages; 4. Return a verdict for that amount for Riley Strickland, plaintiff. 53. Instruction No. 43 was for plaintiff Odom and reads as follows: On the claim of Sidney Odom against the defendants, Big 10 Tire Company and Goodyear, if you find from a preponderance of the evidence in this case that: 1. The defendants Big 10 Tire Company and Goodyear were negligent; and 2. Sidney Odom was negligent; and 3. The negligence of both the defendants and Sidney Odom were proximate contributing causes of the accident in question; and 4. Sidney Odom, plaintiff, sustained damages caused by the combined negligence of the defendants and Sidney Odom; then you will, in arriving at your verdict, first determine that sum of money which will fairly and adequately compensate Sidney Odom for said damages, and then reduce this sum in proportion to the causal negligence of Sidney Odom, using the following method: 1. Determine the proportion that Sidney Odom’s causal negligence bears to the causal negligence as a whole, as a part or percentage of 100 percent = total causal negligence of both the defendants and Sidney Odom; 2. Multiply the sum of money you determined as Sidney Odom’s damages by the percentage figure representing the proportion of Sidney Odom’s causal negligence; 32
3. Subtract the result of your multiplication from the sum you first determined to be Sidney Odom’s damages; 4. Return a verdict for that amount for Sidney Odom, plaintiff. 54. The Kirby plaintiffs lodged objections to the portion of the trial court’s instruction about the comparative-negligence computation saying it was “preemptive in nature.” Goodyear objected to the judge’s instruction “just as a general objection, that we feel it’s confusing.” However, the trial court overruled the objections and gave the court’s instructions. The judge also prepared and gave a general form of the verdict instruction. 55. The jury deliberated more than ten hours during the course of two days before returning its verdict. The jury returned a verdict in favor of all three plaintiffs against Goodyear, but the verdicts were in differing amounts. The verdicts read as follows: We the jury find for the plaintiff, the heirs of Travis B. Kirby, and assess the damages at $733,333.40 (seven hundred thirty-three thousand three hundred thirty-three dollars and forty cents). We the jury find for the plaintiff, Riley Strickland, and assess his damages at $117,963.34 (one hundred seventeen thousand nine hundred sixtythree dollars and thirty-four cents). We the jury find for the plaintiff, Sidney Odom, and assess his damages at $1,754,800.00 (one million seven hundred fifty-four thousand eight hundred dollars). 56. Following the jury’s decision, the judge polled the jury asking if the verdicts as announced were the decisions of all of the jurors, and each juror responded that they were. 57. When the instructions which were given are read as a whole, we find that there was 33
Page 1 and 2: IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STAT
Page 3 and 4: II. The Jury Had Insufficient Evide
Page 5 and 6: automobile continued rotating and h
Page 7 and 8: 2 to its retailers regarding select
Page 9 and 10: said that there was a radial split
Page 11 and 12: terrain where the accident occurred
Page 13 and 14: proper and the jury’s verdict sho
Page 15 and 16: a short time frame, deflated, and t
Page 17 and 18: Instruction No. 7 for appeal. “To
Page 19 and 20: 33. However, procedural bar notwith
Page 21 and 22: Rubber Company, is not an insurer a
Page 23 and 24: finds it incorrectly states the law
Page 25 and 26: the parties and the actions that th
Page 27 and 28: Summary.” The original document,
Page 29 and 30: feasors, the trier of fact shall de
Page 31: plaintiff’s damages by the percen
Page 35 and 36: 59. In denying the submission of th
Page 37 and 38: 7 Prospective juror D.K. did not re
Page 39 and 40: Thus, we find that this part of the
Page 41 and 42: 942, 948 (Miss. 1992). Moreover, th
Page 43 and 44: throughout the trial in an effort t
Page 45 and 46: of Instruction No. 9 was cautioning
Page 47 and 48: (Emphasis added). BY MR. ALLRED: Ob
Page 49 and 50: statement. THE COURT: All right. Th
Page 51 and 52: were only about half of what the ju
Page 53 and 54: manhood, and the pain and suffering
Page 55 and 56: “[h]e’ll blurt things out not m
Page 57 and 58: 108. Finding that there was no erro

in the court of appeals of the state - Mississippi Supreme Court

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?