Title: Griffin v. Fletcher

State: mississippi

Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court

Document:

362 So. 2d 594 (1978) Gertrude GRIFFIN v. Wade J. FLETCHER. No. 50532. Supreme Court of Mississippi. August 23, 1978. Don H. Evans, Jackson, for appellant. Daniel, Coker, Horton, Bell & Dukes, Forrest W. Stringfellow, Gulfport, for appellee. Before SMITH, BROOM and LEE, JJ. LEE, Justice, for the Court: Gertrude Griffin filed suit against Wade J. Fletcher in the Circuit Court, First Judicial District of Hinds County, Honorable William F. Coleman, the presiding judge. From a verdict and judgment in favor of Fletcher, she appeals here and assigns the following errors in the trial below: (1) The verdict of the jury was contrary to the law and the overwhelming weight of the evidence and was contrary to instructions given by the court. (2) The verdict of the jury was inadequate and evinced bias, passion and prejudice on the part of the jury or the verdict indicated that the jury was confused by the instructions. (3) The trial court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial on damages only, or, in the alternative, for a new trial. (4) The trial court erred in granting appellee Instruction No. 7. (5) The trial court erred in granting appellee Instruction No. 9. Appellant, a 43-year-old nurse's aide and school bus driver for the Jackson Municipal Separate School District, was driving a bus on her school route May 10, 1976, in the City of Jackson. She stopped to pick up a school child and turned on flashing lights attached to the bus. Appellee, driving a Veterans' Cab, struck the bus at the left rear bumper with the right front of the cab. He testified that "I misjudged and hit it." When appellant completed her route, she began to suffer pain in her right knee, her foot was swollen and she soaked them in hot water. The next day she was examined by Dr. Robert Smith, who found that she had pain and tenderness in her right knee. She also was complaining of stiffness and *595 pain in her neck. Dr. Smith prescribed Darvon for the pain and saw her for the next four (4) days. She was subsequently referred to an orthopedist and was hospitalized in University Hospital and St. Dominics' Hospital. At the conclusion of all the evidence, the trial judge granted a peremptory instruction on liability to the plaintiff. There is no cross-appeal to that action. The verdict of the jury was "We, the Jury, find for Wade J. Fletcher" and judgment was entered for the defendant. The first four assigned errors will be discussed together. The evidence is undisputed that appellant sustained some injury in the collision and that she suffered damage as a result. Therefore, she was entitled to compensation for same, if the peremptory instruction on liability was properly granted. In Burrell v. Goss, 245 Miss. 420, 146 So. 2d 78 (1962), the trial court instructed the jury to find for the plaintiff. The jury verdict was in favor of the defendant and assessed damages for the plaintiff at nothing. This Court said: Likewise, in Banfill v. Byrd, 122 Miss. 288, 84 So. 227 (1920), the trial court instructed the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff, but the verdict was for the defendant. The Court said there: *596 An examination of the instructions in the present case indicates that, even though a peremptory instruction on liability was given in favor of the appellant, the issue of liability also was presented to the jury in other instructions. This Court said in Moak v. Black, 230 Miss. 337, 92 So. 2d 845 (1957): As stated, the trial court granted a peremptory instruction on liability to the appellant and, in additional instructions to the appellant and appellee, submitted the issue of liability to the jury. The effect of those instructions was to countermand the peremptory instruction and the jury was obviously confused. In this situation, we are of the opinion that the motion for a new trial should have been sustained and that the case should be reversed and remanded for a new trial on both issues of liability and damages. In view of this holding, it will not be necessary to discuss Assignment No. 4, the granting of a certain instruction in favor of appellee. Appellant contends in her fifth assignment of error that the court should not have given appellee Instruction No. 7, which is as follows: Appellee defends Instruction No. 7 with citations from Williams v. Lumpkin, 169 Miss. 146, 152 So. 842 (1934) and Teche Lines, Inc. v. Bounds, 182 Miss. 638, 179 So. 747 (1938). Those cases hold that the verdict must be based on probability rather than a mere possibility. The vice of Instruction No. 7 is that it relates to parts of the evidence and not to the entire evidence which supports the verdict, and it is a comment upon the weight of the evidence. Such an instruction conceivably could exclude circumstantial evidence (parts) and it should not be given on a retrial of the case. For the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial. REVERSED AND REMANDED. PATTERSON, C.J., SMITH and ROBERTSON, P. JJ., and SUGG, WALKER, BROOM, BOWLING and COFER, JJ., concur.