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 0 0 2 6 - CO A CE NT RAL I NDUS TR I ES , I NC. , ROGER L YNN GUY AND J I M M Y R. M CCRORY APP ELLANTS

v. GERA LD I NE M CF ARL ANE APP ELLEE D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 04/ 19/ 2012 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. EDD I E H. BO W EN CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: S M I TH COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL A N TS: H EA TH SH A N N O N D O U G LA S A N D R E W N . A L E X A N D E R III M AR K K. T UL L OS AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : E UGE NE CO UR S E Y T UL L OS NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY TRI AL C OU RT D I SP OSI TI ON : M OTI ON FOR N EW TRI AL G RA NTED D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E N D E R E D - 02/ 24/ 2015 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. , B A R N E S A N D I SH E E , JJ. I S HEE, J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. T h is a p p e a l is b e fo re th is C o u rt a fte r a p e rso n a l-in ju ry trial a n d re trial in th e S m ith C ounty C i r cui tC our t . T he f i r s ttr i al r es ul t ed i n a $100, 000 ver di ctagai ns tD ef endant s R oger L ynn Guy a nd J i mm y R. M c Cr ory a f t e ra di r e c t e d v e r di c tw a s gr a nt e d i n f a vo rof Centr al I ndus tr i es I nc. T he ci r cui tcourtgr ant ed a mot i on f ora new tr i al f

i l ed by G er al di ne M cFarl ane, w hi ch r es ul t ed i n a $250, 000 ver di ctagai ns tG uy, M cC r ory, and C entr al I ndus tr i es . A ggr i eved, G uy, M cC r ory, and Cen tr a l I nd us tr i e s f i l e d the i ns t antappea l al l egi ng f ouri s s ues : ( 1) w hetherthe ci r cui tcourti m pr oper l y gr ant ed M cFar l ane’ s m ot i on f ora new

### It

shoul d be not ed that thefir st tri alwas heard by Circ uit JudgeRober

t Evans. Judge 1 

### Evans also heardMcFarlane’ s m oti on for a ne w tria l; howeve r, he pa ss ed away be for e making a ruling on themoti on. The cas e wa s then a ss igne d to Circ uit JudgeEddieBowen. Jud ge B ow en g rantedthe mo tionfor a n ew trial an d p re si dedov er the seco ndjurytrial in Apri l 2012. 2 trial; (2 ) w h e th e r th e c irc u it co u rt e rre d in a llo w in g th e ju ry to c o n sid e r M c F a rla n e ’s h ip i nj ury i n t he se cond t r i al ; (3) w hetherC entr al Indus tr i es w as an i m pr operpar ty att he s econd tr i al ; and ( 4) w hetherthr ee j ury i ns truct i ons w er e i m pr oper l y gi ven atthe s econd tr i al
. U pon
re v iew o f th e re c o rd , th is C o u rt fin d s th a t M c F a rla n e ’s m o tio n fo r a n e w tria l w a s im p ro p e rly g ra n te d
. W e re v e rse , an d re in sta te th e o rig in a l $ 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 v e rd ict re n d e re d a t th e first tria l. STA TE M EN T O F T H E C A SE ¶2. O n M ay 18, 2006, M cFar l ane w as dri vi ng on H i ghw ay 80 i n Scot tC ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi
. W hi l e w ai t i ng t o m ake a l ef tturn, s he w as s truck f

r om behi nd by G uy’ s t ruck,
w hi ch w as bei ng dr i ven by M cC r ory. A t t ache d t o G uy’ s truck w as an empt y tr ai l erow ned by C entr al I ndus tr i es . T hi s cas e f i r s tw entt o t r i al i n A pr i l 2009. D ur i ng the tr i al , a di r ect ed
ver di ctw as gr ant ed i n f avorof C entr al I ndus tr i es di s m i s s i ng i tf r om the ca s e, and G uy and M cC r ory adm i t t ed l i abi l i ty. A f t erhear i ng the evi dence attr i al , the j ury r eturned a $100, 000
v e rd ic t in fa v o r o f M c F a rl a n e a g a in s t G u y a n d M c C ro ry . ¶3. I n M ay 2009, M cFar l ane f i l ed a m ot i on f

or a new tr i al or , i n t he al t ernat i ve, f oran
a d d itu r. In h e r m o tio n , sh e a lleg e d th a t t h e c ir c u it co u rt h a d e rre d in d ire c tin g a v e rd ict in f avorof C entr al I ndus tr i es and thatt he $100, 000 j ury ver di ctw as nots uf f i ci entt o coverher injuries an d d am ag es. T h e circu itc o u rtg ran ted M cF arlan e’s m o ti o n , an d the s ec o n d jury 1 tr i al t ook pl ace i n A pr i l 2012, r es ul t i ng i n a $250, 000 ver di ctf orM cFar l ane. I n the s econd

### 3

tr i al , C entr al I ndus tr i es w as notdi s m i s s ed f r om the cas e. G uy, M cC r ory, and C entr al I ndus tr i es f

i l ed thi s appea l , ar gui ng thatM cFar l ane’ s m ot i on fora new tr i al s houl d nothave be e n gr a nt e d a nd r e qu e s t i ng tha tthe o r i gi na l $ 10 0, 00 0 ve r di c tf r om the f

i r s ttr i al be
r ei ns t at ed. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶4
. G r ant i ng o rd e ny i ng a mot i on f ora n e w tr i a l l i e s wi thi n the tr i a l c ou r t ’ s s ound d is c re tio n . W

hi t e v. Y el l ow Fr ei

ghtSys. I

nc. , 9 0 5 S o . 2 d 5 0 6 , 5 1 0 (¶ 7 ) (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ). T h is C o u rt m a y o n ly re v e rse th e g ra n tin g o f a n e w tria l w h e n th e c irc u it co u rt h a s a b u se d its d is c re tio n . Id
. “I n or der i ng a new tr i al , the [ ci r cui t ] courtm akes a det erm i nat i on thatt he j ury ver di cti s i n e r r or , a nd thatdue t o m i s t akes m ade i n conduct i ng the tr i al , m i s t akes m ade i n appl yi ng the l aw , ordue t o a j ury ver di ctthati s a gai ns tthe gr eatw ei ghtof the evi dence , a n e w tr ia l is n e c e s s a ry .” W hi t e v . St ew m an , 9 3 2 So
. 2 d 2 7 , 3 3 ( ¶ 1 7 ) ( M i s s . 2 0 0 6 )
. On appea l , the cr edi bl e evi dence w i l l be vi ew ed i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the nonmo vi ng p a rty , an d a ll cre d ib le e v id e n c e tha t su p p o rts th e n o n m o v in g p a rty ’s c laim s o r d e fe n se s s h a ll b e a c c e p te d a s tru e . G r een v . G r ant , 6 4 1 S o . 2 d 1 2 0 3 , 1 2 0 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 4 ). DI S CU S S I ON W het her M cFarl ane’ s m ot i on f or a new t ri al w as i m properl y grant ed b y th e c ircu it co u rt. ¶5. G uy and M cC r ory ar gue thatthe ci r cui tcourti m pr oper l y gr ant ed M cFar l ane’ s m ot i on f ora new tr i al
. I n herm ot i on, M cFar l ane s t at ed thats he bel i eved the courterr ed i n di r ect i ng a verdi cti n favor of C entr al I nd ust ri es, or, i n the al t ernat i ve, s he asked f or an addi tur becau se
s he f el tthatt he j ury ver di ctw as nots uf f i ci entt o com pen sat e herf orheri nj ur i es and

### 4

damag e s . The c i r c ui tc ou r tg r a nt e d M c Fa r l a ne ’ s mot i on a nd s t a t e d tha tthe s e c ond tr i al
w oul d be hea r d on “damages onl y. ” ¶6. M cFar l ane e s s ent i al l y ar gued thattw o m i s t akes w er e made i n the f i r s ttr i al
. Fi r s t , s he b e l i e v e d th a tth e c i r c u i tc o u r te r r e d i n d i r e c t i n g a v e r d i c ti n f a v o ro f C e n tr a l I n d u s tr i e s . On appea l , the s t andar d of

r evi ew ut i l i zed by thi s C our ton m ot i ons f ora di r ect ed ver di cti s de
n o v o , a n d w e v ie w th e e v id e n c e in th e sa m e lig h t a s th e c ir c u it c o u rt . A l f a Mut . I ns . C o. v. C a sc io , 909 So. 2d 174, 178 ( ¶11) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2005)
. T he ci r cui tcourtappl i es the fo llo w in g sta n d a rd w h e n c o n sid e rin g a m o tio n fo r a d ire c ted v e rd ict: The [ c i r c ui t ] c ou r tmay d i r e c ta v e r di c tf orthe d e f

e nd a nta tthe c l os e of

t he pl ai nt i f f ' s pr oof underaut hor i ty of M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l P r ocedur e 50( a) if, i n th e o p in io n o f th e c o u rt, th e p lain tiff h a s fa iled to p re se n t cr e d ib le ev iden ce to estab li sh the n ec essa ry e lem en ts of h is r igh t t o rec o v er. T h e c o u rt m us tcons i deral l evi dence then bef or e i ti n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the p lain tiff a n d m u st c o n c e d e to th e p lain tiff a ll fav o ra b le in fe re n c e s th a t co u ld re a so n a b ly b e sa id to a rise fro m th a t e v id e n c e . O n ly if, v iew e d in th a t li g h t, t he c ou r td e t e r mi ne s tha tthe matt e ri s s o ov e rw he l mi ng l y i n f a vo ro f t he d efe n d an t th at no rea so n ab le j u ror co u ld find fo r the p lai n ti ff, sh o u ld the co u rt d ire c t a d e fe n d a n t' s v e rd ict. Id
. (cit ati o n s o m itted). ¶7. I ti s undi s put ed that , atthe t i m e of the ac ci dent , M cC r ory w as dr i vi ng G uy’ s t ruck,
on w hi ch G uy per f

or m ed the mai nt enanc e, and thatC entr al Indus tr i es ow ned the tr ai l ert hat
w as att ache d t o t he t ruck. H ow ever , atthe f i r s ttr i al , the Sm i th C ounty C i r cui tC our tf ound thatthe Pl ai nt i f

f f ai l ed t o es t abl i s h an agency r el at i ons hi p bet w een the C o- D ef endant s and, thus , di r ect ed a ver di cti n f avorof Cent r al I ndus tr i es . “U nderthe l aw of agenc y, a pr i nci pal i s bound by t he ac t i ons of i t s agentw i thi n the s cope of thatagent ' s r eal orappar ent author i ty. ” Langham v. B ehnen , 3 9 S o . 3 d 9 7 0 , 9 7 4 -75 (¶1 0 ) (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 1 0 ).

### 5

“A ppar entauthor i ty exi s t s w hen a r eas onabl y prudentper s on, havi ng know l edge of t he natur e and the us ages of the bus i nes s i nvol ved, w oul d be j us t i f i ed i n s uppos i ng, bas ed on the
c h a ra c ter o f th e d u ties en tru ste d to th e ag e n t, th a t th e a g e n t h a s th e p o w e r h e is a ss u m e d to have. ” B arnes, B room , D allas & McL eodPL L Cv. Estate of C ap pa ert , 991 So. 2d 1209, 1212 ( ¶10) ( M i s s . 2008)
. T o es t abl i s h appar entauthori t y, o ne m us tpr ove “( 1) act s or conducton the par tof

the pr i nci pal i ndi cat i ng the age nt ' s author i ty, ( 2) r eas onabl e r el i ance
o n th o s e a c ts , a n d (3 ) a d e tr im e n ta l c h a n g e in p o s itio n a s a re s u lt o f s u c h re lia n c e .” Langham , 3 9 S o . 3 d a t 9 7 5 (¶ 1 0 ). ¶ 8
. D e sp ite M c F a rla n e ’s a rg u m e n t th a t G u y h a d a n a g re e m e n t w ith C e n tra l In d u strie s to d e liv e r th e ir p ro d u c ts u sin g tra ilers o w n e d a n d c o n tro lled b y C e n tra l In d u strie s, th e c irc u it ju d g e fo u n d th a t th e o n ly p ro o f p re se n ted at th e first tria l w a s tw o c o n tra d ictin g sta tem e n ts f r om G uy r egar di ng w ho pa i d hi s pa ychec ks
. A l though M cFar l ane as s ert s thatC entr al I ndus tr i es ha d contr ol overthe i nvent ory and w ei ghtof the tr ai l er , the tr ai l erw as empt y at the t i m e of

the ac ci dent , and C entr al Industr i es di d notappea rt o have a ny contr ol i n the
m att er . A s s uch, w e agr ee w i th the ci rcui tco urtthatM cFar l ane f ai l ed t o es t abl i s h any agenc y r el at i ons hi p be tw een C entr al I ndus tr i es a nd i t s tw o Co-D ef endant s , a nd thatdi r ect i ng th e v e rd ic t w a s p ro p e r. ¶9. N ext , M cFar l ane ar gu ed t hatthe $100, 000 ver di ctw as nots uf f i ci entcompensa t i on t o c ov e rh e rd a mage s . “ I ti s p r i mar i l y the p r ov i nc e o f the j ury t o de t e r mi ne the amount of dam ages t o b e aw arded[ , ] and the aw ard w i l l no rm al l y n o t be se tasi de u nles s so
unr eas onabl e i n amount as t o s tr i ke manki nd atf i r s tbl us h as bei ng beyond al l m eas ur e,
unr eas onabl e i n am ountand out r ageous . ” B urge v. Spi ers , 856 So
. 2d 57 7, 58 0 (¶9) ( M i ss.

### 6

C t . A pp. 2003)
. M cFar l ane i ntr oduced medi cal bi l l s thatt ot al ed $37, 227 a tthe f i r s ttr i al , and the j ury t r i al re s ul t ed i n a ver di ctof $100, 000. I thas been l ong hel d that“the j ury i s the tr i er of f actand det erm i nes the w ei ghtof the t es t i m ony a nd the cr edi bi l i ty of the w i tnes s es [ , ] at tr ia l a n d it is th e p ri m a ry p ro v in c e o f t h e ju ry to d e te rm in e th e a m o u n t o f d a m a g e s to a w a rd .” Q ui nn v . Pr e s i de nt

Br oa dwat e rH

ot e lLLC , 963 So. 2d 1204, 1209 ( ¶23) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2007)
. W e f

i nd thatthe j ury a w ar d of $100, 000 i s f

ai ra nd “ i s nots o l ow as t o sho ck the
cons ci ence . ” Id
. at1210 ( ¶24)
. W e di s agr ee w i th M cFar l ane thatthe $100, 000 ver di ctf r om th e first tria l w a s in a d e q u a te, a n d w e h e re b y re in sta te it. CO NC L US I ON ¶10. B eca us e w e f

i nd t hat t he gra nt i ng of the M cFar l ane’ s m ot i on f ora new tr i al w as i m pr oper , I s s ues I I , I I I , and I V thatw er e r ai s ed i n thi s appea l ar e moot . F or the r eas ons
s t at ed, the or dergr ant i ng the new tr i al i s r ever s ed, and the or i gi nal $100, 000 ver di cti n f avor of M cFar l ane a gai ns tM cC r ory and G uy i s r ei ns t at ed. ¶11. 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 S M IT H C O U N T Y IS R E V E R S E D A N D R E N D E R E D , A N D T H E O R IG IN A L JU D G M E N T IS RE I NS T AT E D. AL L C OS T S OF T HI S AP P E AL AR E AS S E S S E D T O T HE APP ELLEE . LE E, C. J . , GR I F F I S , P . J . , B AR NE S , RO B E RT S , CARL TON, M AXW EL L A ND FAI R, J J . , CO NCU R. J AM ES , J . , CO NCU RS I N PART W I THO UT S EPARATE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON . I RV I NG , P. J . , DI SS EN TS W I TH O UT SEPAR ATE W RI TTEN OP I NI ON.