Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01563/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01563-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dosha Ivon Morton
Appellee
George A. Morton
Appellee
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

GEORGE A. MORTON and 

DOSHA IVON MORTON, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

FILED 

United States Court of Ap~RI~ .,.,,,r.rr r, ·~,.,-... 

APR 131989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v . 

WAL-MART STORES, INC, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 87-1563 

(D.C. No. 85-584--C) 

(E.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, BALDOCK and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

Plaintiff-appellee George Morton (Morton) was injured in Mississippi when a stack of heavy boxes fell on him. When the boxes 

fell, Morton was seated on another box in the loading area of 

defendant-appellant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart), watching his 

truck being unloaded. In this negligence action, the jury awarded 

Morton and his spouse damages in the amount of $300,000. The 

district court denied Wal-Mart's motion for judgment n.o.v. or a 

new trial. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34 (a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the law of the case, res 

judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 87-1563 Document: 010110035116 Date Filed: 04/13/1989 Page: 1 
On appeal, Wal-Mart contends that the district court should 

have granted judgment in favor of Wal-Mart and should not have 

instructed the jury concerning the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. 

We reject both contentions. Wal-Mart argues that, by sitting near 

the boxes before or after they fell, Morton could have made a 

visual inspection of them which would have allowed him to show how 

the accident occurred. We agree with the Mortons, however, that 

there was no evidence to indicate that Morton's initial or 

subsequent observation of the boxes would have allowed Morton to 

show how the accident occurred. We have considered the Mississippi law on the issue, Read v. Southern Pine Elec. Power Ass'n, 

515 So.2d 916, 919-20 (Miss. 1987) and Clark v. Vardaman Mfg. Co., 

162 So.2d 857, 858 (Miss. 1964), and conclude that the district 

court's disposition was correct. Accordingly, the judgment on the 

jury verdict is 

AFFIRMED. 

2 

Entered by the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 87-1563 Document: 010110035116 Date Filed: 04/13/1989 Page: 2