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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

the tire that you would see a lot more accidents and lawsuits? (Emphasis added). BY MR. ALLRED: Objection. BY THE COURT: I’ll allow him to answer that question if he can. Again, I don’t – BY MR. ALLRED: Your Honor, may I have a continuing objection then that Goodyear has absolutely concealed all of – BY MR. BAXTER: – I strongly object. That’s totally improper. BY THE COURT: Just a second, Mr. Allred. I’m going to overrule the objection. But again, let’s try to stick within the issues that’s been brought out by this witness on his direct examination. BY MR. BAXTER: Thank you. 88. The first thing which we note about this statement is that it resulted in a ruling favorable to Goodyear. Allred made the statement to which Goodyear “strongly” objected and the trial court overruled Allred’s continuing objection. No citation is needed for the proposition that a party cannot claim as error on appeal a decision which is in its favor. (C) During Plaintiffs’ Closing Argument: “It is not proper for Goodyear to tell you they can condemn people to death.” 89. After this statement, Baxter objected saying the statement was “extremely inflammatory, and we’ve never, ever said that.” 90. The record continues: THE COURT: All right. MR. BAXTER: Request that you instruct the jury to disregard that 48
statement. THE COURT: All right. This is closing argument, but Mr. Allred, let’s please move on now. Let’s – MR. ALLRED: Thank you – THE COURT: – confine it – MR. ALLRED: – Your honor. I will. THE COURT: – to proper argument. 91. This statement without doubt was improper. The trial court recognized the inflammatory nature of the statement and told Allred to “move on.” He further told Allred to confine his closing statements to “proper arguments.” 92. While we do find this statement improper, we do not find that it was probable that the statement alone had a harmful influence on the jury. The trial court recognized that Allred’s statement was out of line and told him to move on and confine his remarks to proper argument. Further as mentioned earlier, the trial court instructed the jury that attorney’s argument is not evidence. 93. When all of the statements which Goodyear cites as objectionable are considered in context, we fail to find that the trial court erred in its rulings. Therefore, this argument is without merit. VII. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR REMITTITUR. 94. Goodyear claims it was error for the trial court to deny its motion for remittitur. It sought to have the trial court change the jury’s verdict: (1) by offering an affidavit of one of 49
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 and 32: plaintiff’s damages by the percen
Page 33 and 34: 3. Subtract the result of your mult
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: (Emphasis added). BY MR. ALLRED: Ob
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?