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 4 0 5 - CO A CHRI S TOP HER S HANE HOW EL L, W EN DY HO W ELL, AND BRI DG EFI ELD CASUALTY I NS URANC E C OM P ANY, I NC. APP ELLANTS

v. EQUI P M EN T, I NC. APP ELLEE
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 10/ 09/ 2012 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. J EF F W EI LL S R. CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT S : W AL T E R C
. M OR RI S ON I V RO GE N K. CH HAB RA D A RR Y L M O SES G I BB S AS HL E Y L . HE NDR I CK S ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEE: DI AN E PRAD AT PU M PHREY NI CHOLAS D. GARRARD CAS EY DALE YOU NGER NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY T RI AL CO UR T DI S P OS I T I ON: J UDGMENT E NT E RE D I N F AVOR OF APPELLEE D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 12/ 02/ 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 I R V I N G , P . J. , B A R N E S A N D C A R L T O N , JJ. BARNES, J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1
. C h ri stop h er S h an e H o w ell su ffered sev ere b o d il y injury w h en the ex tend ed p lat form of the s ci s s orl i f

ton w hi ch he had been w or ki ng f el l s ever al f

eett o the gr ound. Shane, al ong
w i th h i s w i fe, W end y H ow el l , ( the H ow el l s ) s ubs equent l y b rough ta neg l i gen ce cl ai m againstB r i dgef i el d C as ual ty I ns ur ance C om pany ( B r i dgef i el d) , a w or ker s ’ compensa t i on 1 c a rrie r, in ter v e n e d in th e su it t o p ro tec t it s s u b ro g a tio n in ter e st. 

### Acc ording to t he r ec ord, as of Oc tobe r 1, 2012, Bridge fi el d ha d paid “wor ker s’ c ompe nsati on indemnit y be nef it s in an amount ex ceedin g $ 55 ,90 1.0 4 an d med ical ben efits in anamount ex ceedin g $ 19 9,6 21 .95 .” Ho well’s claim w as still op en at that time, andhe continuedto receive benefits. Onapp eal, Bri dgef ie ld ha s f il ed an appe aranc e a s an int er venor . Th e Ho wells settledtheir claim ag ainst JL G p rior to trial. 2 

### Althou ghS han e’s inj uri es wer e ve ry s erious , hehas re cove re d, t o a de gre e, af te r 3 

### ext ens ivere habi li tati on. I t wa s not ed through m edi ca l t es timony t hat Shaneis at

ri sk f or seizures an d w ill continu e to n eed med icationfor th at medical issu e for th e foreseeab le fut ure . 2 t he l i f t ’ s m anuf

actur er , J L G I ndus tr i es I nc. ( J L G ) , and the l i f tdi s tr i but or , E qui pm entI nc. 1 T hey al l eged thatJLG had negl i gent l y m anuf actur ed t he l i f

tand t hatE qui pm entI nc. , w hi ch
r out i nel y per f

or m ed s ervi ce on the l i f

tf orShane’ s empl oyer , had negl i gent l y m ai nt ai ned the l i f tand al l ow ed i tt o be us ed i n an uns af e condi t i on. ¶2. A f

t er a j ury tr i al , a verdi ct w as re nder ed i n f avor of the def

endant , E qui pm entI nc. 2 T he H ow el l s f

i l ed a mot i on f

ora new t r i al or, i n t he al t ernat i ve, a j udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng the ver di ct( JN O V ) , w hi ch w as deni ed by the H i nds C ounty C i r cui tC our t . T he H ow el l s now
a p p e a l
. F i n d i n g n o e r r o r , we a f f i r m. S UM M ARY OF F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶3. O n J anuary 29, 2 01 0, S han e w as em pl oyed as a l abor erata j obs i t e i n R i dgel and, M i s s i s s i ppi , w hen he f

el l appr oxi m at el y tw el ve t o fi f t een f eetf r om the el evat ed pl at f

or m of a JL G C M 2 5 4 6 scissor l if t, struc k his he ad o n the g rou n d , an d su ffered b rok en ri b s, an injury t o hi s s ho ul de r , f

a c i a l f r a c tur e s , a nd b r a i n i nj ury. The l i f ti s a n a e r i a l wor k pl at f or m t hat 3 ext ends ver t i cal l y, unfol di ng i nt o an “X ” pat t ern. T he mai n pl at f or m cont ai ns an ext endi ng “br i dge” thatal l ow s the us ert o gai n cl os eracc es s t o the w or k ar ea. Shane w as w or ki ng on

### 3

th i s e x t e n d e d p l a t f

o r m wh e n i tc o l l a p s e d a n d l a n d e d o n t o p o f h i m. ¶4. T he s ci s s or l i f

t m anuf actur ed by J L G had been pur chas ed by E qui pm ent I nc. , w hi ch lat er s o ld th e lift t o B ates D ryw all , S h an e’s e m p loy er, i n 1 9 9 3
. E q u ipm en t I n c., h o w ev er, cont i nued t o perf

orm se r vi ce mai nt enanc e and “ annual ” i ns pect i ons of the s ci s s orl i f

tf or B at es . ( T he t erm “annua l ” i s i n quot es beca us e, al tho ug h E qui pm entI nc. had per f or m ed
o n g o in g se rv ic e o n th e sc iss o r lift sin c e 1 9 9 7 , d o c u m e n tatio n sh o w s th a t co m p lete i ns pect i on s of t he l i f

tw er e onl y per f

or m ed i n Sept ember1998, M ar ch 2000, J une 2003, J anuary 2008, and J une 2009. ) O n J anuary 28, 2010, the day pr i ort o Shane’ s acc i dent , an
e m p lo y e e o f E q u ip m e n t In c ., H u g h B o y k in , h a d c o n d u c ted a se rv ice c a ll fo r t h e lift in q u e s t i o n t o a d d r e s s a s t e e r i n g p r o b l e m. ¶5. A s s t at ed, the H ow el l s f i l ed a negl i gence compl ai nt agai ns t J L G and E qui pm entI nc. T h e b a sis o f th e H o w e lls’ c o m p lain t ag a in st E q u ip m e n t In c . w a s th e lac k o f a w e ig h tca p ac ity d ec al i n d icati n g the m ax im u m w eigh t l im itfo r the p lat form e x tens ion (25 0 p o u n d s). T hey cont ended thatB oyki n s houl d have not ed t he deca l w as m i s s i ng w hen he c ame outf or the servi ce cal l and i nform ed B at es D ryw all tha t t he li ftw as unsafe f or use. T hey al so
ar gued that“C
- channe l s ” on t he pl at f or m w er e bent , i ndi cat i ng anotherpot ent i al s af ety i s s ue. ¶6
. A ft er a jury tr ial , a ve rdict w as en tered in fav o r of E q u ipm en t Inc . T h e cir cu itco u rt
s ubs equent l y deni ed the H ow el l s ’ m ot i on f ora new tr i al or , i n the al t ernat i ve, a JN O V , and they fi l ed an app eal , w hich w as defl ect ed t o this C ou rt . F i nd i ng that the v erdi cti s not agai nst th e o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e a n d th a t th e c irc u it co u rt d id n o t ab u se its d i s c r e t i o n i n th e g i v i n g o f c e r t a i n j u ry i n s tru c t i o n s , we a f f i r m. DI S CU S S I ON

### 4

I . W het her t he ci rcui t court erre d i n denyi ng t he H ow el l s ’ m ot i on f or a n e w t r i a l o r , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , t h e i r mo t i o n f o r a J NOV. ¶ 7 . T h e H o w e lls a rg u e th a t th e c irc u it c o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g th e ir m o tio n fo r a n e w trial, i n w hi ch they ar gued thatthe j ury’s verdi ctw as agai ns tthe overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof t he evi dence
. A m o tio n f

o r a n e w tr ia l c h a lle n g e s th e w e ig h t o f t h e e v id e n c e . B us h v. Stat e, 8 9 5 S o . 2 d 8 3 6 , 8 4 4 (¶1 8 ) (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ). W h en rev iew ing the d en ial o f a m o tio n fo r a n e w trial, “ w e w ill o n ly d istu rb a v e rd ict w h e n it i s s o c o n tra ry to th e o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e th a t to a llo w it t o sta n d w o u ld s anct i on an uncons ci onabl e i nj us t i ce. ” I d. ( ci t i ng Her r i ng v. Stat e, 691 So. 2d 948, 957 ( M i s s . 1997) )
. Fur therm or e, “ the evi dence s houl d be w ei ghed i n the l i ghtm os tf

avor abl e t o t he ver di ct . ” I d. H a th a w a y v . L e w is , 114 So. 3d 783, 786 ( ¶7) ( M i s s . Ct
. A pp. 2013)
. A l t ernat i vel y, the H ow el l s cont end the ci r cui tcourts houl d have gr ant ed t hei rm ot i on fora JN O V beca us e the
ev iden ce w as leg all y insu ffi cien t t o su p p o rta v e rd ictfor E q u ipm en t I n c. “A m o ti o n for a JN O V ‘ t es t s the l egal s uf f i ci ency of

the evi dence s uppor t i ng the ver di ct . ’ ” Fr ed’s St or es of T en n . Inc . v. P ra tt , 67 S o. 3d 820, 824 ( ¶18) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2011) ( quot i ng G oodw i n v. D er r yber r y C o. , 55 3 S o. 2d 40 , 42 (M i ss. 198 9))
. E vidence i s con si dered “i n the l i gh tm ost f avor abl e t o the party agai ns tw hom t he m ot i on has bee n m ade, di s r egar di ng any evi dence on t he partof

the movant , w hi ch i s conf l i ct i ng. ” Id
. ( quot i ng B runer v. U niv. of S. Miss. , 501 So. 2d 1113, 1116 ( M i s s . 1987) )
. “A JN O V i s notpr oper‘ i f ther e i s c r edi bl e evi dence f r om
w hi ch t o dr aw r eas onabl e i nf er ence s , s uppor t i ng the j ury’ s ver di ct . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng B r uner , 5 0 1 S o . 2 d at 11 1 6 ). ¶8
. T he H ow el l s cont e nd tha ta n A ug us t1 4, 1992 “D i s t r i but orSal es and Ser vi ce A gr eement ” betw een J L G and Equi pm entI nc. ( r ef err ed t o i n the agr eementas “D i s tr i but or ”)

### The m anua l f or the s ci ss or l if

t indic at es that the weight c apa ci ty f or the e xte nded 4 

### platf orm was 250 pounds. Shane ’s wei ght at t he tim e of the a cc ide nt wa s a

pproxi mate ly 275 po un ds. 5 i m pos ed an a f

f i r m at i ve duty upon E qui pm entI nc. t o address any sa f ety i s s ues w i t h t he
m a c h in e u se d b y B a tes D ry w a ll. T h e a g re e m e n t sta tes in p a rt: A s and t o t he ext entt hatD i s tr i but orbecomes aw ar e thatany Pr oducti s bei ng i m pr oper l y oper at ed orthatany Pr oductr equi r es m ai nt enanc e ors ervi ce f or its c o n tin u e d s a fe o p e ra tio n , D istrib u to r sh a ll n o tif y the o w n e r a n d

u se r o f sa id P rodu ctof

s uch and us e i t

s bes tef f or t s t o have the ow nerand us erof the P r o d u c tc o r r e c tth e s a me . ( Em ph a s i s a dd e d)
. The How e l l s c l a i m t ha tthe e vi de nc e s ho w e d tha tEqu i pm entI nc. b rea ch ed it s d u ti es to S h an e a n d B ates D ryw all “to m a k e s u re u n safe co n d it ion s w ere
re p a ire d ; to in fo rm its c u sto m e r w h e n e q u ip m e n t it se rv ice d w a s n o t sa fe fo r u se a n d sh o u ld be t aken outof

s ervi ce; a nd t o us e i t s be s te f f or t s t o ha ve the ow nerand us erof the pr oduct t o corr ectany pr obl ems w i th the machi nery. ” T he day bef or e Shane’ s a cci dent , E qui pm ent I nc. w as cont act ed by B at es D r yw al l t o corr ecta s t eer i ng pr obl em on t he s ci s s orl i f tatt he j obs i t e. B oyki n r epl ace d the s t eer i ng s w i t ch and r epai r ed a br oken w i r e i n the harnes s . T he H ow el l s a r gu e tha tBoyk i n ha d a d uty t o do mor e tha n j us tf i x the s t e e r i ng p r ob l em – t hat b a se d u p o n th e e ig h tee n -y e a r-o ld a g re e m e n t, h e s h o u ld h a v e n o ted th a t th e w e ig h t-c a p a c ity
s t i ckerf orthe pl at f

or m ext ens i on w as m i s s i ng and i nf or m ed B at es D ryw al l thatthe l i f tw as danger ous and s houl d be r emoved f r om s ervi ce. To supportthei rar gum entthatthe l i f tw as 4
c le a rl y u n s a fe fo r u s e , th e H o w e lls p o in t to d e p o s itio n t e s tim o n y b y S te p h e n F o rg a s , a
r epr es ent at i ve f

orJ L G , w ho s t at ed: W e l l , th e ma c h i n e s h o u l d n o th a v e b e e n i n u s e b a s e d o n wha tI s a w d u r i n g my i n s p e c t i o n d u e t o l a c k o f ma i n t e n a n c e , p o o rma i n t e n a n c e o n th e ma c h i n e , s o me of the thi ng s w e al ready t al ked abo ut, such as m i ssi ng capac i ty p l acards,

### 6

m iss in g p a rts o n th e e x ten sio n d e c k , d a m a g e to th e e x ten sio n d e c k , d a m a g e to otherpor t i ons of

the guar dr ai l s , damage t o the cabl e fr om t he contr ol box dow n t o t he gr ound. ¶9. B ut , as E qui pm entI nc. not es , i tw as r eadi l y appar entf r om the evi dence pr es ent ed that ther e w as no f

or m al contr actoragr eementbetw een Bat es D ryw al l and E qu i pm entI nc. f or
s e rv ic e . B illy B a te s s ta te d th a t h e o n ly “ c a lle d [E q u ip m e n t I n c .] w h e n [h e ] h a d a p ro b le m .” H i s t es t i m ony i s corr obor at ed by the document ed s ervi ce r ecor d of the l i f t , w hi ch i ndi cat es compl et e “annua l ” i ns pect i ons had onl y been conduct ed f i ve t i m es i n a t hi r t een- yearper i od. M r . B at es acknow l edged a s m uch, s t at i ng: S o m e tim e s I w o u ld h a v e [a lift] w o rk e d o n a n d w h o e v e r g o e s o u t th e re w o u ld say, “M r. B at es, yo ur i nspecti on , do yo u w ant t o d o it ?” “Y es. ” I ’d s ay, “Y es, do i t . ” A nd s omet i mes I woul d – I d on ’ tr e membe ri f I g ota c a l l f

r om t hem t el l i ng m e i tw as due o r not , bu tI m ay h av e at t i m es. I don’tkn ow , becau se I w as a payi ng cus t om erand w hen they di d i t , they gotpai d. ¶1 0
. M o re o v e r, alth o u g h th e H o w ell s claim th at M r. B ates reli ed on E q u ipm e n t In c . to i nf or m hi m r egar di ng the s af ety of the l i f t , he ne vert es t i f

i ed thathe w as e ven aw ar e of t he A u g u st 1 4 , 1 9 9 2 a g re e m e n t b e tw e e n JL G a n d E q u ip m e n t In c . T h e sc iss o r li ft h a d b e e n so ld t o B at es D ryw al l i n 1993, and S hane’ s i nj ury occurr ed i n 2010, seve nt een yea r s af t erB at es D ryw all ac q u ir ed the lif t. A d d it ion all y , the s ales m a n a g e r f o r E q u ipm en t I n c., B o B u tl er,
a s s e r t e d i n h i s t e s t i mo n y th a th e wa s u n a wa r e o f th e 1 9 9 2 a g r e e me n twi th J L G. ¶11. B at es D r yw al l di d notask B oyki n t o conducta compl et e i ns pect i on of the l i f tw hen he made the r epai r s on J anuary 28, 2010. I n f act , Boyki n s t at ed thatthe w or ker s on the j ob
s i t e w er e w ai t i ng f

orhi m t o compl et e hi s r epai rs so t hey coul d getback t o w or k, as
e v id e n c e d b y th e fo llo w in g tes tim o n y : Q
. . . . E xpl ai n t o the j ury w hy you di dn’ trun i tan d chec k i tf orpr oper

### 7 oper at i on w hen you di d thi s f i x on the s t eer i ng box. A
. W el l , I r an i tand oper at ed i tf r om the gr ound. T her e w as no need t o get i n i t . I m ean, t hey’r e j us ts t andi ng ther e w ai t i ng on m e tryi ng t o get thr ough w i th a j ob.
. . . T hey coul dn’ tr eal l y go anyw her e. A nd s o I goti tback i n oper at i on and, you know , turned ar ound and as ked them – t hey’ ve gototherm achi nes t her e – “D o you have anythi ng el s e you nee d m e t o chec k w hi l e I ’ m her e?” So I don’ tget hal f w ay bac k t o the s hop and they ca l l , “O h, yeah, I f or gotthi s , ” you know
. A nd s o j us tchec ked and made s ur e everyt hi ng w as w or ki ng. T h e y sig n e d th e tick e t.

. . . . Q
. A ll r ig h t. A n d y o u s a id th e y w e re s ta n d in g th e re w a itin g fo r [ th e lif t], m eani ng thatthey w er e us i ng thatmachi ne r i ghtbe f or e they ca l l you, c o rre c t? A
. Y e s, sir. It h a d q u it. T h u s, the ju ry c o u ld rea so n ab ly infer from th e e v iden ce that B ates D ryw all w an ted th e li ft putback i nt o servi ce as qui ckl y as pos s i bl e and di d notdes i r e a c om pl et e i ns pect i on of t he lift. ¶12. A ddi t i onal l y, B oyki n t es t i f i ed that he not ed no danger ous condi t i ons on the l i f tw hen conduct i ng the on- s i t e s ervi ce c al l
. H e s t at ed: “I w as onl y cal l ed t o r epai rw hatthey ca l l ed about
. I m ean, you don’ tdo a com pl et e i ns pect i on every t i m e you go t o a machi ne. Y ou
w al k up ther e, you l ook. I f you s ee s om ethi ng thatcat ches your eye , then – you know , you
m ake n ote of

i tthen
. ” A no ther service t echn i cian fo r E q u i pm ent I nc. , R on nie W at t s, testi fi ed : “I’m traine d t o reco g n ize [ if a m ac h ine is too da n g ero u s t o be i n se rv ice ], b u t I haven’ tgotthe author i ty t o t ake i toutof s ervi ce be caus e I do notow n i t . ” Fur ther , the s al es
m anage rf

orE qui pm entI nc. , B ut l er , s t at ed:

### 8

W e do n’thav e a blank ch eck, s o w e can’tgo spend theirm on ey and f i x these thi ngs w i thoutthei rauthor i zat i on. A nd num bert w o, w e si m pl y don’ tow n the equi pm ent . I t ’ s notour s . So w e t ry and gi ve t hem as m uch use f ul i nf or m at i on a s w e c a n to – to m a k e a d e c isio n o n a n d lea v e it at th a t. A s t o For gas ’ s t es t i m ony r egar di ng the uns af e condi t i on of

the l i f t , w e obs erve thatFor gas addi t i onal l y not ed thati tw as the o p era tor’s r es pons i bi l i ty t o con ducta “w al k- ar ound i ns pect i on” bef

ore oper at i ng the machi ne and a cknow l edged thathe di d notexami ne the
m a c h in e u n til o v e r a y e a r a fte r th e a c c id e n t. ¶ 1 3
. F u rth e rm o re , E q u ip m e n t In c . n o tified B a tes D ry w a ll th a t th e d e c a ls w e re m iss in g in i t s 2009 annual i ns pect i on r eport . A ccor di ng t o the A ugus t2008 i ns pect i on, w hi ch w as
co n d u cted b y B o y k in, th e w eigh t- ca p ac ity d ec al f o r th e p lat form ex tens ion on th e scisso r l if t
w as in p lace
. B o y k in also told B ates D ryw all ’s fo rem an , R ed M il ler, that the ra il s o n the lif t
w er e bentdow n. H ow ever , the J une 29, 2009 annual i ns pect i on r eport , w hi ch w as pr ovi ded t o B at es D r yw al l , not ed thatthe m anual a nd c apac i ty de cal s w er e not“i n pl ace , s ecur e [ and] l egi bl e, atboth pl at f

or m and gr ound s t at i ons . ” Th er ef or e, B at es D ryw al l w as not i f i ed that th e c a p a c ity d e c a ls w e re n o t in p la c e . ¶14. A ddi t i onal l y, M i ke P ace , the E qui pm ent I nc. servi ce t echni ci an w ho per f or m ed the J une 2009 i ns pect i on, t es t i f i ed thatw hen he i ns pect ed the l i ft , ther e w as no i ndi cat i on t hat th e “ C -c h a n n e ls” o n th e p latfo rm e x ten sio n w e re b e n t. S h a n e e v e n a c k n o w led g e d in h is t es t i m ony that , as f

aras he knew , the “C-c hannel s ” w er e not“ m es s ed up” on the day of the
ac cide n t and that h e n e v e r s a w a n y th ing o n the lif t th at w o u ld ca u se h im to b eli ev e the li ft
w as uns af

e. ¶15. A ccor di ngl y, w e f i nd that the evi dence w as l egall y s uf f i ci ent t o s uppor t the ver di ct

### 9

a n d n o t a g a in s t th e o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f t h e e v id e n c e . I I . W het her t he ci rcui t court err ed by gi vi ng j ury i nst ruct i ons t hat w ere not s upp ort ed by t he evi dence. ¶16. T he gi vi ng o r r efusal o f j ury instruct i ons by a ci r cui tcourti s r evi ew ed under an
a b u s e -o f- d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd
. C a rs o n v . S ta te , 125 S o. 3d 104, 105 ( ¶4) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2013) ( ci t i ng McI

nnis v. Stat e, 61 So. 3d 872, 875 ( ¶10) ( M i s s . 2011) )
. I f , w hen r eadi ng the j ury i ns truct i ons t ogetheras a w hol e, “the i ns truct i ons f ai r l y announce the l aw of the ca s e and
cr eat e no i njust i ce, no r ever s i bl e err orw i l l be f ound. ” Id
. at105- 06 ( ¶4) ( quot i ng M aye v . S ta te , 4 9 S o . 3 d 1 1 2 4 , 1 1 2 9 (¶7 ) (M iss. 2 0 1 0 )). “T h o u g h a d efe n d an t has th e rig h t to jury in stru c tio n s th a t p re se n t h is th e o ry o f th e c a se , an in stru c tio n m a y b e re fu se d if it ‘inc o rre c tly
s t at es the l aw , i s cover ed f ai r l y el s ew her e i n t he i ns truct i ons , or i s w i thoutf oundat i on i n t he evi dence
. ’ ” Id
. at106 ( ¶4) ( quot i ng D avis v. Stat e, 18 S o . 3d 84 2 , 84 7 (¶1 5 ) (M iss. 2 0 0 9 )).

A
. Jur

y I ns tr uct i on D
- 24R ¶ 1 7 . T h e Ho we l l s a r g u e th a tJ u r y I n s tru c t i o n D- 2 4 R, wh i l e a c o rr e c ts t a t e me n to f th e l a w,
w a s n o t su p p o rt ed b y the e v iden ce an d “ina p p li ca b le i n the in stan t case . ” T h e jury i ns truct i on s t at ed: A s uper s edi ng caus e i s an i ndepende ntand unf or es een a ctby a thi r d per s on w hi ch f ol l ow s the def

endant ’ s negl i gence and w hi ch i s the s ubs t ant i al f act or in c a u sin g the p lain tiff’s in ju rie s. A su p e rse d in g c a u se b e c o m e s th e p ro x im a te c a u se fo r th e p lain tiff’s in ju rie s a n d th e d e fe n d a n t’s n e g lig e n c e is a re m o te caus e f orw hi ch he i s notl i abl e. T hus [ , ] i f

you f i nd f r om a pr eponder ance of the evi den ce i n thi s cas e that E qui pm entI nc. w as negl i genti n servi ci ng the s ubj ectl i f t , butthatan unf or es eea bl e ac tby B at es D ryw al l , s uch as al l ow i ng the l i f tt o be over l oaded, and / or used b y i m properl y tr ai ned em ployees, fol l ow ed the pl ai nti ff’s i njur i es, then Equi pm entI nc. i s notl i abl e f orthe i nj ur i es pr oxi m at el y r es ul t i ng f r om the s uper s edi ng caus e and yourver di cts hal l be f orthe def

endant , E qui pm entI nc.

### 10

Speci f i cal l y, the H ow el l s ar gue thati tw as f or es eea bl e thatB at es D ryw al l w oul d re l y on t he
se rv ice s o f E q u ip m e n t In c . to m a k e su re the sc iss o r li ft i n q u e stio n w a s s a fe ; th u s, th e c irc u it
courterr ed i n t he gi vi ng of thi s i ns truct i on. ¶18
. “T he q uest i on of w hetheran a ct o f n eg li g en ce i s a f oreseeabl e supersedi ng cause
re q u ir e s a n e x a m in a tio n o f t h e s e q u e n c e o f e v e n ts le a d in g to th e in ju ry .” Li f t -A l lC o. I

nc. v. W ar ner , 943 So. 2d 12, 17 ( ¶18) ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng E ckm an v. Moor e, 876 So. 2d 975, 982 ( ¶18) ( M i s s . 2004) )
. “I n c as es i nvol vi ng the i s s ue of a n i nt erveni ng c aus e, . . . the or i gi nal act orw i l l notbe abs ol ved of l i abi l i ty beca us e of

a s uperveni ng caus e i f

hi s negl i gence put i n m ot i on t he agenc y by orthr ough w hi ch i nj ur i es w er e i nf l i ct ed. ” M& M

P i pe & P ress ure V e ss e l Fa b ric a to rs In c . v. R o b e rts , 531 So. 2d 615, 618 ( M i s s . 1988) ( ci t i ng C api t olTobacco & Sp eci alt

y C o. v. R un nels , 22 1 S o. 2d 70 3, 70 5 (M iss . 1 96 9))
. ¶ 1 9
. E qui pm entI nc. agr ees t hati tw as f or es e e a bl e Bat e s Dr yw al l “w oul d r el y on E qui pm entI nc. t o pe r f

or m the w or k w hi ch i thi r ed E qui pm entI nc. t o do on thatpart i cula r day, ” w hi ch w as t o f

i x the s t eer i ng pr obl em on t he l i f t . B uts i nce the ac ci denthad nothi ng t o do w i th the s t eer i ng i s s ue r epai red t he day pr i ort o Shane’ s acc i dent , E qui pm entI nc. count er s t hatt he j ury i ns truct i on w as support ed by the evi dence , as the i nj ur i es r es ul t ed f r om B at es D ryw al l ’ s “f

ai l ur e t o pr oper l y i ns pecta nd i ns tructi t s e m pl oyees on the pr operus e and i ns pect i on of s uch equi pm ent ” and that“[ s ] uch negl i gence on the partof B at es [ D ryw al l ] w as
u n fo re se e a b le[.]” It w a s a lso u n fo re se e a b le to E q u ip m e n t In c . th a t B a tes D ry w a ll w o u ld have Shane , an empl oyee w ho e xcee ded the w ei ght
- capa ci ty l i m i tf orthe pl at f

or m , w or ki ng
o n th e sc iss o r lift. ¶20. W e f

i nd no err ori n t he givi ng o f t his jury i ns truct i on. A s ours upr eme cour t has

### 11

s t at ed: “[ T ] he ques t i on of s uper s edi ng i nt erveni ng c aus e i s s o i nextr i cabl y t i ed t o caus at i on, i ti s di f f i cul tt o i m agi ne a c i r cumst ance w her e s uch i s s ue w oul d notb e o ne forthe tr i erof f act . ” O ’C ain v. H

arvey Freem an & Son s Inc. of Miss. , 6 0 3 S o . 2 d 8 2 4 , 8 3 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 ). Fur therm or e, the j ury i ndi cat ed i n t he f or m of t he ver di ctt hati tfound “thatE qui pm entI nc.
w as notnegl i gentw hi l e s ervi ci ng the ae r i al l i f t ”; s o i f ther e w er e any pot ent i al err ori n t he g iv in g o f t h is ju ry in s tru c tio n , it w o u ld b e c o n s id e re d h a rm le s s . See Li f t -A l lC o. , 943 So. 2d at18 ( ¶21) ( f

i ndi ng that“ ther e w as no pr i m ary a ctof ne gl i gence w hi ch coul d be s uper cede d b y a se co n d ary ac t of n eg li g en ce ”).

B
. Jur

y I ns tr uct i on D
- 38 ¶21. A t tr i al , the H ow el l s obj ect ed t o the ci r cui t court ’ s gi vi ng of Jury Ins truct i on D
- 38, cl ai m i ng i tw as an i ncompl et e s t at ementof the l aw and mi s l ed the j ury r egar di ng an empl oyer ’ s duty t o i t s empl oyee. T he j ury i ns truct i on r ead: A n e m p lo y e r o w e s its e m p lo y e e s th e n o n d e leg a b le d u ty to p ro v id e its em p loy ee s w ith a sa fe p lace to w o rk. T h ere fore , i f yo u fi n d th at th e su b ject l if t w a s u n sa fe fo r u se a n d th a t it s u se b y M r. H o w e ll d u rin g h is e m p lo y m e n t w ith B ates D ryw all Inc . fail ed to rem ed y the u n sa fe c o n d it ion o f M r. H o w ell ’s w or kpl ace , then you mustf i nd thatB at es D ryw al l w as negl i gentby br eac hi ng its n o n d e leg a b le d u ty to M r. H o w e ll. T h e H o w e lls a rg u e th a t th e ju ry sh o u ld a lso h a v e b e e n in s tr u c ted th a t th e e m p lo y e r w a s to
exer ci s e “r eas onabl e ca r e i n hi s nondel egabl e duty, ” and the i ns truct i on, as gi ven, i m pl i ed B at es D ryw al l w as “s tr i ct l y l i abl e f orany act i on s t hatoccurr ed as a r es ul tof us e of the
s c is s o r l if

t.” ¶2 2. W e f

i nd no mer i tt o thi s a r gu ment . The j ury i ns truc t i on p r ov i de d a compl et e and
acc ur at e st at em entof

the l aw , w hi ch i s that“an e m pl oyerow es i t s empl oyees t he

### 12

nondel egabl e duty t o pr ovi de i t s empl oyees w i th a s af e pl ace t o w or k. ” G re e n v . A llen da le P lant i ng C o. , 954 So. 2d 1032, 1037 ( ¶12) ( M i s s . 2007) ( quot i ng Monr oe C nt y. E l ec. P ow er As s ’ n v. P ace , 4 6 1 S o . 2 d 7 3 9 , 7 4 8 (M iss . 1 9 8 4 )). T h e ju ry w a s fu rth e r in stru c ted th a t it
m u st fin d a d d iti o n a l fa c to rs ( i.e., th a t th e lift w a s u n sa fe f o r u se a n d M r. B a tes fa iled to
r emedy the unsa f

e condi t i on) i n orde rt o as s i gn any f aul tt o B at es D ryw al l ; ther ef or e, w e do notf i nd t hatt he j ury i ns truct i on i m pos ed a “s tr i ctl i abi l i ty” st andar d. T her ef or e, w e f i nd no
a b u se o f d isc re tio n in th e g iv in g o f Ju ry In stru c tio n D -3 8 b y th e c irc u it co u rt.

C
. Jur

y I ns tr uct i on D
- 39R ¶ 2 3
. Th e Ho we l l s a l s o c l a i m th a t th e c i r c u i t c o u r t e rr e d i n g i v i n g J u ry I n s tru c t i o n D- 3 9 R,
w hi ch addr es s ed the f

or m of ver di ct , s t at i ng: Shoul d you f

i nd thatE qui pm ent I nc. w as notnegl i gentw hi l e s ervi ci ng the aer i al l i f tw hi ch i s the s ubj ectof

thi s l aw s ui t , then you s hal l r eturn a ver di ctf or E qui pm entI nc. A nd yourver di cts hal l be:

“ W e , th e ju ry , fi n d fo r t h e D e fe n d a n t, E q u ip m e n t I n c .” If yo u fi n d for E q u ipm en t I n c., y o u n ee d n o t pro ce ed furthe r. S im p ly return th e v e rd ict s tate d a b o v e to th e C o u rt. S ho uld you return a ve rdi ctforthe p l ai nti ff s i n thi s cause, then yo u m ust al l ocat e f

aul tt o eac h per s on orent i ty w hos e conduc tyou f i nd caus ed the pl ai nt i f f s ’ damages by us i ng the f ol l ow i ng pr ocedur e: 1
. F ir st, d eterm ine th e total am o u n t of d am ag es, i f an y , y o u w ish to a w ard t o the pl ai nti ff

s. $

_________ - fo r p a st m e d ica l ex p e n se s, (if a n y ); $

_________ - for futu re m ed ical ex p en ses, (i f an y ); $

_________ - for p ast l o st w ag es, (i f an y ); $

_________ - for futu re lost w ag es, (i f an y ): $_________ - f

orpa s ta nd f

utur e pai n, s uf

f er i ng, l os s of

enj oym entof li fe a n d o ther n o n -ec o n o m ic da m ag es (if an y ); $

_________ - fo r lo ss o f c o n so rtiu m fo r W e n d y H o w e ll, (if a n y );

### 13

2. I f you have det erm i ned, underot heri ns truct i ons gi ven t o you and bas ed o n a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e , tha t th e p lain tiff , S h a n e H o w e ll, w a s g u ilty o f n e g lig e n c e w h ich p ro x im a tely c o n trib u ted to th e e v e n ts w h ich c a u se d h is d a m a g e s, w h a t pe rc e n tag e o f fa u lt d o y o u a llo c a te to M r. H o w e ll? _

________ % fa u lt. 3. I f you have de t erm i ned, underotheri ns truct i ons gi ven t o you and bas ed on a pr eponder ance of the evi dence , t hatM r . H ow el l ’ s em pl oyer , B at es D ryw al l Inc. , i s l i able f or al l or a port i on of the p lai n ti ff’s dam ages, w hatper cent age of

faul tdo you f

i nd s houl d be al l ocat ed t o B at es D ry w a ll In c .? _

______ % fa u lt. 4. I f you have de t erm i ned, underotheri ns truct i ons gi ven t o you a nd bas ed o n a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e , tha t E q u ip m e n t In c . is liab le f o r a ll ora port i on of the pl ai nt i f f s ’ dam ages , w hatper cent age of f aul tdo you fin d sh o u ld b e a llo c a ted to E q u ip m e n t In c .? _

_____ % fa u lt. 5. T he combi ned t ot al pe r cent ages of f aul ta l l ocat ed t o C hr i s t opherShane H o w e ll, B a te s D ry w a ll I n c ., a n d E q u ip m e n t I n c . m ust equal 100 pe r c e nt . C o u n se l fo r th e H o w e lls a rg u e d a t tria l th a t its J u ry In stru c tio n P -1 5 R w a s m o re a p p ro p ria te
an d sim p le be ca u se “itlog icall y [w en t] thro u g h the issu es an d h a[d] the jury d ec ide, fi rsto ff, wh e th e ro rn o t[ E q u i p me n tI n c . ] wa s n e g l i g e n t . ” T h e Ho we l l s c l a i m th a tJ u ry I n s tru c t i o n D3 9 R w as c o n fusin g to the jury b ec au se itad d resse d d am ag es b efo re li ab il ity . T o su p p o rt th e ir c laim , th e y n o te th e fac t th a t th e jur y fo u n d E q u ip m e n t In c . w a s n o t ne g lig e n t, b u t still fi lle d o u t t h e r e s t o f th e v e rd ic t f o rm , a s s e s s in g z e ro p e rc e n ta g e o f f a u lt to E q u ip m e n t I n c ., d esp it e the instruction s tha t th ere w as n o n ee d to p roc ee d furthe r. ¶2 4
. M issi ssipp i C o d e A n n o tat ed sec ti o n 1 1 -7-1 5 7 (R ev . 2 0 0 4 ) stat es: “N o sp ec ial form of the ver di cti s r equi r ed, and w her e ther e has been a s ubs t ant i al compl i ance w i t h t he
r equi r ement s of

the l aw i n r ender i ng a ver di ct , a j udgm ents hal l notbe arr es t ed orr ever s ed fo r m e re w a n t o f fo rm th e re in .’” “ [T ]he te st o f w h e th e r a v e rd ict is s u ffic ien t as to fo rm ‘is

### 14

w hetheror noti ti s an i ntel l i gen tansw er t o the i ssues s ub m i t t ed to the jury an d ex press ed so tha tthe i nt e nto f

the j ury c a n be u nd e r s t oo d by the c ou r t . ” O l i verv. G oodyearTi r e & R ubberC o. , 10 So. 3d 976, 978 ( ¶7) ( M i ss. C t . A pp. 2009) ( quot i ng Mis s . V al l ey G as C o.
v. Estate of

W alker, 7 2 5 S o . 2 d 1 3 9 , 1 5 1 (¶ 4 5 ) (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ) (o v erru led o n o ther g rou n d s)). ¶25. I n thi s i ns t ance , t he j ury’ s ver di ctcl ear l y expr es s ed thati tdi d notf i nd E qui pm ent I nc. liab le f o r d a m a g e s, a n d its in ten t w a s u n d e rsto o d b y th e c irc u it co u rt. A lth o u g h th e ju ry d id
n o t p re c ise ly fo llo w th e in stru c tio n s in re n d e rin g th e v e rd ict, w e fin d th a t itsu b sta n tially
c o m p lied w ith th e re q u ire m e n ts o f th e la w . A c c o rd in g ly , w e fin d n o a b u se o f d isc re tio n in the gi vi ng of

thi s j ury i ns truct i on. ¶ 2 6
. T H E J U D G M E N T O F T H E C IR C U IT C O U R T O F H IN D S C O U N T Y IS AF F I RMED . 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 A PPE LL A N TS. LE E, C. J . , I RVI NG AND GRI F F I S , P . J J . , I S HEE , ROBE RT S , CARL TON, M AXW EL L A ND F AI R, J J . , CONCUR. J AM ES , J . , CONCURS I N P ART W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.