I N T H E C O UR T O F APPEA LS O F TH E STAT E O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO . 2 0 1 3 - CA - 0 1 0 5 0 - CO A CO URTNEY N EVELS AP P EL LA NT
v. W AL M ART TR ANS P ORTA TI ON, LL C AND CLAUD E R. S M I TH APP ELLEE S
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 06/ 13/ 2013 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. M
. J AM ES CHANEY J R. CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: W ARREN COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A T T O RN E Y F O R A P P E L L A N T : D A V I D M. S E S S U MS ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LE ES : DAV I D C. DUN BAR BE NNY MCC AL I P “ M AC ” M AY M OR TON W AR D SM I TH NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L INJ URY T RI AL CO UR T DI S P OS I T I ON: M OT I ON F OR S UM M AR Y J UDGMENT GR AN TED I N FA VO R O F APP ELLEES D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 09/ 09/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E G R I F F I S, P . J. , R O B E R T S, M A X W E L L A N D F A I R , JJ. RO BERTS , J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T h is ap p ea l st em s from the W arren C ou nty C i rcui tC ou rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary j udgm enti n f

avorof W al m artT r ans po rt at i on L L C ( W al m art ) and C l aude R. Sm i th af t er fin d in g tha t C o u rtn e y N e v e ls fa iled to p re se n t an y g e n u in e issu e s o f m a ter ial fa c t. N e v e ls ap p ea ls an d ask s th is C o u rtto d eterm ine w h ethe r, b ase d o n the fa cts p rese n ted, su m m ary j u d g me n twa s ap p r o p r i a t e . W e h o l d th a ts u mm a ry j u d g me n twa s a p p r o p r i a t e ; th e r e f o r e , we
a f f i rm. F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY

### 2

¶2. O n M ay 8, 2012, S m i th w as dri ving on Int ers t at e 20 W estthrough V i cks bur g, M i s s i s s i ppi , i n a tr act or - tr ai l erow ned by W al m art . H e w as w i thi n the sc ope and cour s e of hi s empl oym ent . A tthe s ame t i m e, N evel s w as a gues tpas s engeri n a N i s s an A l t i m a dr i ven by herf r i end, C hanci e C onner l y, on I nt er s t at e 20 W es t , i n the sa m e l ane butats om e di s t ance beh i nd S m i th. D ue to the rai ny w eather and w etroad co nd i t i on s, m ult i ple w recks had just
o c c u rre d a h e a d o f th e m o n th e in ter sta te c a u sin g s e v e re tra ffic d e lay s. O v e r th e h ill , traff ic in b o th la n e s h a d c o m e to a c o m p lete sto p . S m ith c re ste d th e h ill a n d h a d to im m e d iate ly app l y h i s brakes due to the st and st i l l traf fi c ahea d o f hi m caused by several otherw recks. C o n n e rly , fo llo w in g b e h in d S m ith , c re ste d the h ill sh o rtly the re a fte r, b u t sh e w a s u n a b le to
s t op i n t i m e bef

or e s he r ear - ended Smi th. A s a r es ul tof the i m pact , N evel s s uf

f er ed i nj ur i es to h e r l e g s . ¶3. N evel s f

i l ed her compl ai nt on J une 20, 2012, agai ns t W al m art , Sm i th, and C onner l y, al l eg i ng tha tConne r l y a ndSmi th b oth wer e ne gl i ge nti n the op e r a t i on of the i rr e s pect i ve
v eh icl es, and th eir n eg li g en ce co m b ined t o cau se h er i n juri es. N ev els sett led w ith h er d ri v er, C o n n e rl y , a n d C o n n e rl y w a s d is m is s e d fr o m th e a c tio n . ¶4. W al m artan d S m i th fi l ed a mot i on f ors um m ary j udgm enton D ece m ber19, 2012,
as s ert i ng thatther e w er e no genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fa ctfr om w hi ch a j ury coul d concl ude that W alm art an d S m ith ’s ne g li g en ce ca u sed o r con tr ibu ted to the a cc iden t. T h e c ir cu itco u rt h eld a h ea ri n g o n th e m o ti o n o n M ay 3 0 , 2 0 1 3 , an d itg ran ted th e m o ti o n for su m m ary ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f W a lm a rta n d S m ith
. ¶ 5
. Ne v e l s ap p e a l s a n d r a i s e s t e n i s s u e s f o rr e v i e w:

### 3

I
. T he [ ci r cui t ] court err ed about the t es t i m ony of
. . . Conner l y r egar di ng S m ith ’s n e g lig e n c e a s th is w a s fo r th e triero f fa c t. I I
. T he [ ci rcui t ] co urterr ed r egar di ng the w ei ght , i f any, t o be gi ven t es t i m ony r egar di ng Sm i th l i s t eni ng t o hi s C B r adi o as thi s w as f orthe triero f fa c t. I I I
. T he [ ci r cui t ] court err ed by i gnor i ng t es t i m ony that Sm i th di d nothave hi s vehi cl e undercontr ol , ther eby t aki ng s ai d i s s ue f r om the j ury. IV
. T h e [circ u it] c o u rt e rre d in f in d in g th a t S m ith h a d n o d u ty to re d u c e h is s peed a s s ai d i s s ue w as cont es t ed underthe f act s and l aw and f

orthe r es ol ut i on of

the j ury. V
. T he [ ci r cui t ] courterr ed i n no t f i ndi ng [ W al m artand S m i th] gui l ty of negl i gence , pers e. VI
. T he [ ci r cui t ] cour te r r ed i n f i ndi ng t hatt her e w as no cl ai m t he [W a lm a rt] tra iler lig h ts w e re n o t w o rk in g a n d th a t th e re w a s n o c laim of equi pm entf

ai l ur e. V II. T h e [c irc u it] c o u rt e rre d in fin d in g th a t e x p e rt w itn e ss T im C o rb itt “ fa ile d to c o n n e c t th e d o ts .” V I I I
. T he [ ci r cui t ] courterr ed i n f i ndi ng W

hi te v. Mi l ler , 5 13 So. 2d 600 (M i ss. 198 7) di sposi t i ve of the is sue i n thi s m att er as W h ite . . . , unl i ke the pr es entm att er , di d noti nvol ve the i s s ue of compar at i ve negl i gence . X I. T h e [ci rcu it ] c o u rte rred in eq u ati n g a n d fin d in g tha t bec au se S m ith ’s tr ac tor-trail er did no t im p ac t an y ve h icl es ah ea d of him th a t th is c o n c lu siv e ly e sta b lish S m ith w a s [n o t] g u ilty o f .
. . n e g lig e n c e , a s th is w as a[ n] i s s ue f

orthe j ury. X
. T h e [ci rcu it ] c o u rte rr ed in grant i ng sum m ary j ud gm ent t o [ W alm art a n d S m ith ]. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶6. “W e a p p ly a d e n o v o standard of revi ew t o the tri al court' s ruling o n su m m ary j udgm ent . ” A nderson v. L aV ere , 136 So. 3d 404, 409 ( ¶24) ( M i s s . 2014) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons

### 4

om i tt ed). M i ssi ssipp i R ule of C i vilP rocedu re 56(c) p rovi des that “i f the p l eadings, dep osi t i on s, answ ers to i nterrogat ori es and a dm i ssi on s on fi l e, t og ether w i th the af fi dav i t s, if a n y , sh o w th a t th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e a s to a n y m a ter ial fa c t an d th a t th e m o v in g p a rty is en ti tl ed to a ju d g m en t as a m att er o f l aw , ” the n su m m ary ju d g m e n t is ap p rop ri ate. I n
c o n sid e rin g a m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t, ev id e n c e is v iew e d in th e li g h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e n o n m o v a n t. A nders on , 1 3 6 S o . 3 d at 40 9 (¶2 4 ). A N A L Y S IS ¶ 7
. A s o u tli n e d a b o v e , N e v e ls r a ise s n u m e ro u s is su e s s p e c ifica lly p e rta in in g to th e c irc u it
court ’ s r evi ew a nd a nal ys i s of the evi dence w hen i tgr ant ed s um m ary j udgm enti n f avorof W al m artand Sm i th. Pur s uantt o our s t andar d of r evi ew , al s o out l i ned above, w e r evi ew the evi dence pr es ent ed t o the ci r cui tcourtundera de novo s t and ar d. A s s uch, w e w i l l be
a d d re s s in g h e r i s s u e s th ro u g h o u r o w n a n a ly s is o f th e e v id e n c e . ¶8
. I n a negl i gence act i on, “ the p l a i nt i f f b e a r s the bur den of

pr oduci ng evi dence
s uf f i ci entt o es t abl i s h the exi s t ence of the convent i onal t orte l ement s of duty, br eac h of

duty, pr oxi m at e caus at i on, and i nj ury. ” P alm er v. B i loxi Reg 'lMed. C tr. , 564 So. 2d 1346, 1355 ( M i s s . 1 99 0)
. Gene r a l l y, o ne i s u nd e raduty t o a c t“ a s ar e a s on a bl e a ndp rud entper s on
w oul d have a ct ed underthe s ame ors i m i l arci r cumst ance s . ” Kna pp v. Stanf

ord , 392 So. 2d 196, 199 ( M i s s . 1980)
. M or e s peci f i cal l y, an aut om obi l e dri verhas a duty “t o keep a
re a so n a b le lo o k o u t” a n d “ tak e re a so n a b ly p ro p e r ste p s to a v o ida n a c c id e n t o r in ju ry to per s ons and pr operty af t erhavi ng know l edge of [ a] danger
. ” Shi delerv. Taylor , 292 So. 2d 1 5 5 , 1 5 6 -57 (M iss. 1 9 7 4 ).

### Neve lste stif ie d at her depositi on that

she did not se e brake li ghtsimme diate ly a fter 1 

### cres tingth e h ill ; however , there wa s no other disputethat t

he l ight s werefunc ti oning properly. 5 ¶9. A ccor di ng t o Sm i th’ s depos i t i on, he w as dr i vi ng appr oxi m at el y f orty- f i ve mi l es per h o u r in V ick sb u rg w h e n h e c re ste d a h ill a n d sa w th a t th e tra ffic a h e a d o f h im w a s a t a
s t ands t i l l
. Sm i th bra ked har d and w as abl e t o br i ng hi s truck t o a compl et e s t op tw o t o thr ee
carl engths behi nd the ca ri n f r ontof hi m . H e t es t i f

i ed thathe di d notl os e contr ol of hi s truck
an d d id n o t sl ide. S m ith test if ied th at he h ad b ee n li sten ing to his C B radio , bu t he h ad h ea rd no di s cus s i on aboutthe tr af f i c ahea d of hi m . T her e w as no l egi t i m at e di s put e thathi s br ake li g h ts an d run n ing li g h ts w ere o n an d fun cti o n al at th e ti m e o f th e a c c ide n t. A n d S m ith ’s 1 test im o n y as to h is spe ed w as c o rrob o rated b y th e in fo rm ati o n retri ev ed from h is truc k ’s b lack b o x . T h e p o sted sp ee d li m itw as six ty m il es p er h o u r. ¶10. C onner l y w as al s o depos ed. She t es t i f i ed thata dri vercom i ng overthe hi l l cannot s ee
w hati s on the others i de of the hi l l unt i l re achi ng t o t op of the hi l l
. She t es t i f i ed thatshe w as g o i n g ap p r o x i ma t e l y s i x ty mi l e s p e rh o u ri n th e r a i n a n d th a t“ b y th e t i me I c o u l d s e e d o wn th e h ill , I ju st re m e m b e r se e in g b ra k e lig h ts. . . . I tried to sla m o n m y b ra k e s, a n d th a t [i s] a ll I c a n re m e m b e r.” W h e n a sk e d if S m ith d ida n y th in g to c a u se th e a c c id e n t, C o n n e rly
r e s p o n d e d : “ No
. He h a d t o s t o p . T h e r e wa s a wr e c ki n f r o n to f h i m. ” Ne v e l s ’ s o wn depos i t i on acknow l edged that“w hen you t op [ the hi l l ]
. . . , unl es s you ar e compl et el y over it, y o u c a n n o t se e d o w n it[ ,] ” a n d S m ith w e n t co m p lete ly o u t o f sig h t as h e to p p e d th e h ill
. ¶11. I n the pr es entcas e, N evel s of f er s onl y co nclusory al l egati on s uns upport ed by the

### 6

evi dence t o i nf

erthatSm i th w as negl i gent . W e f i nd the evi dence i ns uf

f i ci ent , as “[ t ] he nonm ovi ng party’ s cl ai m m us tbe support ed by m or e than a m er e s ci nt i l l a of col or abl e evi dence ; i tm us tbe evi dence upon w hi ch a f ai r - m i nded j ury coul d r eturn a f avor abl e ver di ct . ” Luvene
v . W a ldr u p , 90 3 So
. 2d74 5, 74 8 ( ¶1 0) ( M i s s . 20 05 ) ( qu ot i ng Wilb o u rn v . Sten n e tt, W i lki nson , & W

ard , 6 8 7 S o . 2 d 1 2 0 5 , 1 2 1 3 -1 4 (M is s . 1 9 9 6 ))
. ¶ 1 2
. In su p p o rt o f h e r a rg u m e n t th a t t h e re w e re g e n u in e iss u e s o f m a ter ial fa c t, N e v e ls
su b m its th e a ffid a v it o f V ick sb u rg P o lice D e p a rtm e n t T ra ffic In v e stig a to r L e o n c e Y o u n g to
s how t ha ti f

Smi th was l i s t e ni ng t o the CB r a di o a s he t e s t i f i e d h e w a s do i ng a tthe t i m e, S m ith c e rt ainly w o u ld ha v e h ad ad v an ce w arn ing of th e tr affic si tuation
. H o w ev er, his
s t at ementi s hi ghl y s pecul at i ve, as he di d nott es t i f y thathe had pe r s onal know l edge that ther e w er e w arni ngs on the C B r adi o on thatpa rt i cul arda y. H i s a f f i davi tdoes notcr eat e a g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial fa c t to d isp u te S m ith ’s te stim o n y th a t h e d idn o t h e a r a n y tra ffic
w arni ngs on the C B r adi o. M ore i m port ant l y, N evel s f ai l s t o s how thr ough I nves t i gat or Y oung’ s af

f i davi thow Sm i th coul d have a voi ded the ac ci denteven i f he had the adva nce
w arni ng vi a the C B r adi o. N evel s al s o submi t s the af f i davi tof T i m C orbi tt , an ac ci dent
r econs truct i oni s t , w ho s t at ed that“Sm i th’ s s udden appl i cat i on of br akes and l os s of

contr ol of hi s vehi cl e caus ed C onner l y t o s l am on herbr akes l eavi ng he ri ns uf f i ci entt i m e t o br i ng h e r v e h ic le to a h a lt[,] . . . a n d th e s e a c tio n s o n th e p a rto f S m ith . . . c o n s titu te d n e g lig e n c e .” A gai n, thi s s t at ementi s s pecul at i ve and concl us ory, a s i tf ai l s t o t ake i nt o cons i der at i on that
re g a rd les s o f w h e n S m ith a p p lied h is b ra k e s, C o n n e rly c o u ldn o t h a v e se e n S m ith ap p ly h is br akes unt i l s he cr es t ed the hi l l t o s ee the others i de. T hus , s he w oul d nothave ha d any

### 7

o p p o rtu n ity to ap p ly h e r b ra k e s a n y s o o n e r th a n s h e d id a n d p o s s ib ly a v o id th e a c c id e n t. ¶13. U l t i m at el y, w e f i nd thatN evel s f

ai l s t o presentev i den ce suffi ci entt o es t abl i s h a g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial fa c t as to S m ith ’s n e g lig e n c e . S h e fa ils to sh o w h o w S m ith b re a c h e d h is d u ty to a c t w ith re a so n a b le c a re . A c c o rd in g ly , w e fin d th a t th e c irc u it co u rt d id noterri n gr ant i ng s um m ary j udgm enti n f avorof W al m artand Sm i th. ¶ 1 4
. T H E JU D G M E N T O F T H E C IR C U IT C O U R T O F W A R R E N C O U N T Y IS AF F I RMED . AL L CO S T S OF T HI S AP P E AL ARE AS S E S S E D T O T HE A P P E L L A N T . LE E, C. J . , I RVI NG AND GRI F F I S , P. J J . , BA RNE S , I S HEE , CARL TON, M A X W E L L A N D F A I R , J J ., C O N C U R . J A M E S , J ., N O T P A R T I C I P A T I N G .