I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 8 - CA- 0 0 9 7 7 - S CT CAR LA U TZ, I

ND I VI DU ALLY AN

D O N B EH

ALF OF ALL W

RONGFUL DEATH BENEFICI ARI ES AN D TH E ESTATE O F PRESTO N JI M M Y U TZ, DECEAS

ED
v. RU NNI NG & R OL L I

NG T RU CK I NG, I NC . AN D ANTHONY Q . HU

NTER
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 04/ 11/ 2008 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. CH AR LES E . W EBSTER COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: BOLI VAR COUN TY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : J AM E S AS HL E Y OGDE N W E NDY MI CH E L L E YUAN AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E S : J AS ON HOO D S T RO NG B. S TE VENS HAZARD NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - W RO NG FUL D EATH D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 04/ 15/ 2010 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 C A R L SO N , P . J. , L A M A R A N D C H A N D L E R , JJ. CH AND LER, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T hi s cas e i nvol ves a w r ongf ul- death act i on agai ns t R unni ng and R ol l i ng T rucki ng, I nc. ( R & R ) , and A nt hony Q . H unt er( H unt er ) f orthe dea t h of

Pr es t on Ji m m i e U t z ( Pr es t on) O n D e c e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 3 , P re sto n w a s d riv in g o n H ig h w a y 6 1 in B o liv a r C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i. H unt er , a truck dr i verf

orR & R , dr ove an e i ght een- w heel ertr act or - t r ai l ertruck on H i ghw ay

### Th ese issues h ave b een reco mbin ed into tw enty -five issu es. 1 

### 2 61. T he N i s s an M axi m a occ upi ed by Pr es t on s t ruck the r earof H unt er ’ s t r act or - t r ai l erand k ille d P re s to n . ¶2. Fol l ow i ng Pr es t on’ s death, hi s w i dow , C ar l a U t z ( C ar l a) , f i l ed a w rongful -death act i on agai ns tR & R and H unt eri n t he C i r cui tC our tof t he Second J udi ci al D i str i ctof B ol i var C ount y, M i s s i s s i ppi . A j ur y tr i al w as c onduct ed on A pr i l 7- 10, 2008. T he m ai n i s s ue att r i al
w as w hether R & R ’s f

ai l ur e t o pr ovi de r ef

l ect i ve t ape, al s o know n as cons pi cui t y t ape, as re q u ire d b y th e F e d e ra l M o to r C a rrie r S a fe ty R e g u latio n s (F M C S R ), ca u se d th e a c c id e n t. T he tr i al courti ns t ruct ed t he j ury thatR & R and H unt erw er e negl i gentby vi ol at i ng the FM C SR s , t her ef

or e, t he j ur y had onl y t o deci de t he l i abi l i t y i s s ue of pr oxi m at e ca us e. T he j ur y r etur ned a ve r di cti n f avorof R & R and H unt er . C ar l a f i l ed pos t - t r i al m ot i ons f or j udgm entnot w i t hs t andi ng t he ver di ct( JN O V ) , ori n t he al t ernat i ve, a new tr i al , ori n the al t ernat i ve, addi tur . T he t r i al cour tdeni ed C ar l a’ s pos t - t r i al m ot i ons . C ar l a appe al ed the tr i al
cou rtrul i ng , rai si ng for t y-tw o is sues. 1 FACTS ¶3. Pr es t on U t z, along w i t h t w o fr i ends, E phr ai m W ool f and Sabr i na A s hm or e, s pent Satur day, D ece m ber13, 2003, gather i ng i ngr edi ent s t o “cook” m ethamphet ami ne ( crys t al
m eth) . T hey ar ri ved at a nea rby l ake a tappr oxi m at el y m i dni ghtand bega n the cooki ng pr oces s . B y 4: 00 a. m . , t he f i r s t“pul l , ” orbat ch, of the drugs w as re ady. Pr es t on, W ool f , and A s hm or e al l “ t e s t e d, ” ors moke d, t he c r ys t a l meth. Betw e e n 1 : 00 a nd 2: 00 p. m. Sun day aft ernoon , Prest on , W oo l f, and A shm ore l eftthe l ake and w ent t o S t eve B rook s’s h o u se

### 3

lo c a ted n e a r C lev e lan d . W h e n th e y a rriv e d a t B ro o k s’s h o u se , the y d iv id e d th e c ry sta l m e th among P r es t on, W ool f , A nder son, and B r ooks . L at erthateveni ng, Pr es t on bor r ow ed B ro o k s’s N issan M ax im a to d ri v e A sh m o re h o m e to C larksd ale. O n h is r eturn tr ip to C l evel and, Pr est on co l l i ded w i t h an ei ght een- w heel ertr act or - t r ai l erdr i ven by H unt erf or R & R . Pr es t on di ed as a r es ul tof t he col l i s i on. DI S CU S S I ON I . E vi dent i ary and P roce dural I s s ues ¶4. T hi s C our t has hel d t hat t he s t andar d of r evi ew f or a t r i al cour t ’ s deci s i on t o ei ther admi tor exc l ude evi dence i s abuse of di s cr et i on. R o b in so n P ro p . G ro u p , L .P . v. Mitch e ll , 7 S o . 3 d 2 4 0 , 2 4 3 (M iss . 2 0 0 9 ); B eve r l y E nters . , I

nc. v. R eed , 96 1 S o. 2d 40 , 44 (M i ss. 20 07 ). T he app el l at e co urt s w i l l no trever se a ruli ng t o ad m i tor excl ud e evidence u nles s a s u b s ta n tia l r ig h t o f a p a rt y is a d v e rs e ly a ff e c te d . Mitch e ll , 7 S o . 3 d a t 2 4 3 . ¶5. M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of E vi dence 401, 402, and 403 addr es s w hat evi dence i s r el evant and w hen rel evan tevidence, nev ertheles s, m ay b e excluded . R ule 401 st at es: “R el evantE vi dence” m eans evi dence havi ng any t endenc y t o m ake the exi s t ence of

any f actt hati s of

cons equenc e t o t he det erm i nat i on of t he ac t i on m or e pr obabl e orl es s pr obabl e than i tw oul d be w i t houtthe evi dence . ¶6. M i ssi ssi pp i R ule of E vidence 4 02 st at es: A l l r e l e va nte vi de nc e i s a dmi s s i bl e , e xc e pta s o t he r w i s e p r ov i de d by t he C o n stitu tio n o f th e U n ited S tate s, th e C o n stitu tio n o f th e S tate o f M iss iss ip p i, orby t hes e rul es . E vi dence w hi ch i s notr el evanti s notadmi s s i bl e. ¶7. M i ssi ssi pp i R ule of E vidence 4 03 st at es: A lth o u g h re lev a n t, ev id e n c e m a y b e e x c lu d e d if its p ro b a tiv e v a lu e is s ubs t ant i al l y out w ei ghed by the dange rof unf ai rpr ej udi ce, confus i on of the

### 4

i s s ues , orm i s l eadi ng t he j ur y, orby cons i der at i on s of undue del ay, w as t e of t i m e, orneedl es s pr es ent at i on of cumul at i ve evi dence . ¶8 . T h e stan d ard o f rev iew fo r the a d m issi o n o r sup p ression o f ev iden ce , inclu d ing ex p ert te s tim o n y , is a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . P o o le e x r e l. W ro n g fu l D e a th B e n e

fic ia rie s o

f P o o le
v. A vara , 908 S o. 2d 716, 721 ( M i s s . 2005) ( ci t i ng Mis s . T r ansp. Com m '

n v. McLem ore , 8 6 3 S o . 2 d 3 1 , 3 4 (M is s . 2 0 0 3 )) . See a l so Investor R es. S e rv s., In c . v. Ca to , 15 So. 3d 412, 4 1 6 (M iss . 2 0 0 9 ); A dco ck v. Miss. T ra n sp . Co m m ’n , 9 8 1 S o . 2 d 9 4 2 , 9 4 6 (M is s . 2 0 0 8 ). ¶9. R ule 702 o f the M i ssi ssi pp i R ules of E vidence st at es: I f s ci ent i f i c, t echni cal , orot hers peci al i zed know l edge w i l l as s i stthe t r i erof factt o u nd ers t and t he ev i den ce or t o d et erm i ne a facti n issu e, a w i t ness qual i f i ed as an exper tby know l edge, s ki l l , exper i ence , t r ai ni ng, oreduca t i on, m ay t es t i f

y t her et o i n t he f

or m of an opi ni on orot herw i s e, i f ( 1) the t es t i m ony i s bas ed upon s uf

f i ci entf act s ordat a, (2) t he t es t i m ony i s t he pr oductof r el i abl e pr i nci pl es and met hods , and ( 3) the w i t nes s has appl i ed t he pr i nci pl es a n d m e th o d s re lia b ly to th e fa c ts o f t h e c a s e . M iss. R . E v id. 70 2 . T o d eterm ine the ad m issi b il ity of ex p ert-w itn ess testi m o n y , this C o u rt adopt ed a t es ti n McL em ore as s t at ed i n D auber t v. Mer r el

l D ow P harm aceuti cal

s, I nc. , 509 U . S. 579, 113 S. Ct . 2786, 125 L . Ed. 2d 469 ( 1993) , a nd as m odi f i ed i n Kum ho T

ir e Co. v. Car m i chael , 5 2 6 U .S . 1 3 7 , 1 1 9 S . C t. 1 1 6 7 , 1 4 3 L . E d . 2 d 2 3 8 ( 1 9 9 9 ). McL em ore , 863 So. 2d at35. I n McL em ore , this C o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t, un d e r R u le 7 0 2 , e x p e rt te stim o n y is
a d m is s ib le if

it is re le v a n t a n d re lia b le . Id . at38. Rul e 702, how ever , doe s notpr ovi de f or a r el axat i on of

“the t r adi t i onal st andar ds fordet erm i ni ng t hatt he w i t nes s i s i ndeed qua l i f i ed t o s peak a n opi ni on on a mat t erw i t hi n a purpor t ed f i el d of know l edge. ” M i s s . R . E vi d. 702 cmt . Fur ther , t he tr i al j udge i s cons i der ed the gat ekeep er and det erm i nes t he val ue of t he

### 5

e x p e rt te s tim o n y . Ca to , 15 So. 3d at416. A s the gat ekee per , the tr i al j udge ens ur es thatany e x p e rt te s tim o n y is re le v a n t a n d re lia b le . P o o le , 908 So. 2d at723. ¶10. R el evante vi dence i s thate vi dence w hi ch has “any t endenc y t o m ake the exi s t ence of any factt hat i s of consequ ence to t he d et erm i nati on of the acti on m o re p rob ab le or l ess pr obabl e than i tw oul d be w i t houtthe evi dence.” M i s s . R . E vi d. 401. T he thr es hol d f or a dmi s s i bi l i t y i s n otg r e a t , k e e pi ng i n mi nd the f a c ttha tRul e 4 01 f

a vo r s the a dmi s s i on of
e v id e n c e w h e n it h a s p ro b a tiv e v a lu e . Ca to , 15 So. 3d at417 ( ci t i ng McL em ore , 863 So. 2d at40). W hen det erm i ning r el i abil i t y, this C ou rthas hel d t hat t he exp ertt esti m o n y m ust demonstr at e thathi s opi ni on “i s bas ed upon s ci ent i f i c met hods and pr ocedur es , not
un support ed s pecul at i on. ” A dcock , 981 So. 2d at947. T o t hi s end, t hi s C our thas
enu m erat ed som e fact ors that m ay b e con si dered as fol l ow s:

‘ [ W ] hethert he theory ort echni que ca n be a nd ha s be en t es t ed; w hetheri thas been s ubj ect ed t o peerrevi ew an d publ i cat i on; w hether. . . ther e i s a hi gh know n orpot ent i al r at e of err or ; w hethert her e ar e s t andar ds contr ol l i ng t he t echni qu e' s oper at i on; and w hetherthe theory ort echni que enj oys gener al a c c e p ta n c e ’ w ith in th e e x p e rt ' s p a rt ic u la r f ie ld . McL em ore , 863 So. 2d[ ] at37 ( ci t i ng D au bert , 5 0 9 U . S . at 59 2 -94 , 1 1 3 S . C t. 2 7 8 6 ). Id . See a l

so Ca to , 15 So. 3d at417. 1. D rug use by P res t on ¶11. C ar l a ar gues thatthe t ri al co urterr ed by denyi ng herm ot i on i n l i m i ne t o excl ude t es t i m ony f

r om E phr ai m W ool f

conce r ni ng Pr es t on’s al l eged maki ng, us i ng, ors el l i ng m ethamphet ami ne ( crys t al m eth) bef or e the w r eck. S he cl ai m s thatthe t es t i m ony w as hear s ay, pr ej udi ci al , a nd notr el evant . Fur t her , C ar l a cl ai m s thatthe pr ej udi ci al ef f ectw as

### 6

compounded by t he t es t i m ony of the St at e t oxi col ogi s t , Car m en M cI nt i r e, t hatPr es t on had
n o c ry s ta l m e th in h is s y s te m a t th e tim e o f t h e w re c k .

A . E p h r a im W o o lf ¶12. T he t r i al court deni ed C ar l a’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne t o excl ude W ool f’ s t es t i m ony. T he tr i al cour tdet erm i ned thatW ool f’ s t es t i m ony w as nothe ar s ay, be caus e i tw as hi s per s onal
o b s e rv a tio n a n d k n o w le d g e . See M iss . R . E v id. 80 1 an d 6 0 2 . W h il e the tr ial co u rt acknow l edged thatt he t es t i m ony w as l i kel y t o be pr ej udi ci al , t he t es t , pur s uantt o R ul e 403 i s w hethert he pr obat i ve val ue of the evi dence i s s ubs t ant i al l y out w ei ghed by the dange rof unf ai rpr ej udi ce. U ndert hatt es t , t he tr i al co urtd et erm i ned thatthe pr obat i ve val ue of t he t es t i m ony conce r ni ng act i vi t i es i nvol vi ng m ethamphet ami ne pr i ort o t he cr as h di d not
o u tw e ig h th e d a n g e r o f u n fa ir p re ju d ice . T h e trial c o u rt sta ted , in p a rt: A s c o n c e rn s th e c laim th a t th e p re ju d icia l e ffe c t o f s u c h e v id e n c e w o u ld outw ei gh t he pr obat i ve val ue and c onf us e the j ury as t o t he f

act s of t hi s cas e, the courtcan qui ckl y concl ude thatt he evi dence w i l l m os tl i kel y have a pr ej udi ci al ef

f ectupon t he j ury’ s vi ew of t he pl ai nt i f

f . H ow ever , t hati s nott he t es t . T he t es ti s w hetherunderM R E 403 t he pr obat i ve val ue of t he evi dence is sub stan ti all y o u tw eigh ed b y th e d an g er o f un fair prejud ice. A g ain, th ere a p p e a rs to b e n o a ttac k a s to th e v e ra c ity o f su c h e v id e n c e . T h e d e fe n d a n ts a s s e r tt h a ta tt h e t i me o f t h e a c c i d e n t , t h e d e c e a s e d wa s c o mi n g d o wn f r o m a crys t al m ethamphet ami ne “hi gh, ” a pr oces s know n as “c r as hi ng. ” A ccor di ng t o atl eas tone def

ens e expert , w hen an i ndi vi dual cr as hes f ol l ow i ng a crys t al m etha m p h etam ine h igh , su ch an ind ividu al w o u ld b e p ron e to d o z ing o ff and/ ornotbe hi ghl y re act i ve. D es pi t e the pl ai nt i f f’ s ar gum entt o t he contr ary, the courtf

i nds t hatt he pr obat i ve val ue of evi dence thatthe dec eas ed enga ged i n act i vi t i es i nvol vi ng m ethamphet ami nes pr i ort o t he acci dent i s not s ubs t ant i al l y out w ei ghed by the dange rof unf ai rpr ej udi ce. ¶13. W ool f t es t i f

i ed, t hat pr i or t o t he w r eck, Pr es t on had been s t ayi ng at hi s hous e on and of f . O n Satur day, t he day be f or e t he col l i s i on, W ool f s t at ed t hatPr es t on w as w i t h hi m and a gi r l named Sabr i na ( A s hm or e) . T he gr oup pl anned t o “cook” crys t al m eth. D ur i ng t he day,

### 7

they all he lped to g athe r th e ing red ients for the cry stal m eth. T h ey all m et at S teve B roo k s’s hous e bef

or e goi ng t o Beul ah L ake t o c ook the crys t al met h. W ool f t es t i f i ed thatB r ooks w as at his h o u se w h en they arrived , an d B ro o k s k n e w w h a t th ey w ere g o ing to d o . W o o lf , Pr es t on, and A s hm or e arr i ved att he l ake a r ound m i dni ght , s t art ed coo king the met h about 1 :0 0 a .m ., a n d a b o u t th re e h o u rs la ter , the first “ p u ll, ” o r b a tch , w a s re a d y to sm o k e . W o o lf stat ed tha t he , P reston , a n d A sh m o re a ll sm o k ed the d rug s an d g o t high . A cc o rdin g to W o o lf , they cooke d t he drugs al l ni ghtand i nt o t he nextday unt i l aboutl uncht i m e, t hatbei ng 1: 00 to 2 :0 0 p .m . B e c a u se o f th e e th e r th a t is u se d in th e p ro c e ss o f m a k in g th e d ru g s, W o o lf
s t at ed thateventual l y, a crys t al met h us erw i l l f al l a s l eep. T hey r eturned t o C l evel and ar ound 6: 00 p. m . and w entt o B r ooks ’ s hous e t o s pl i tthe drugs . W ool f , Pr est on , A shm ore, and B roo k s all too k a sh are o f th e d rug s. T h en , they all g o t high ag ain a n d h u n g aro u n d for a
w h il e a t B roo k s’s h o u se. P reston d rov e A sh m o re h o m e to C lark sd a le, leav ing B roo k s’s house atabout10: 30 or11: 00 p. m . W ool f s t at ed thathe w oul d nothave w ant ed t o t r avel
w ith P re s to n a t th a t tim e b e c a u s e th e y h a d b e e n s m o k in g a n d a w a k e fo r d a y s . ¶14. T he tr i al cour tdi d noterrby admi t t i ng W oo l f’ s t est i m ony. W ool f t es t i f i ed about
e v e n ts th a t w e re w ith in h is p e rs o n a l o b s e rv a tio n a n d k n o w le d g e . See M i s s . R . E vi d. 601 and 602. H i s t es t i m ony w as nothear s ay, w hi ch i s def i ned as “ a s t at ement , otherthan one made b y the d e c lar a n t w h ile tes tify in g at th e tri a l or h e a rin g , o ffe re d in e v id e n c e to p ro v e th e tru th
o f th e m att er a sserted . ” M iss. R . E v id. 80 1 . W o o lf test if ied a b o u t his acti o n s an d P reston ’s act i ons pr i ort o Pr es t on leavi ng B r ooks ’ s hous e t o br i ng A s hm or e home and the f at al
c o lli sio n . W o o lf d id n o t tes tify to a n y sta te m e n ts m a d e b y P re sto n . W o o lf tes tified o n ly aboutevents thatw er e w i t hi n hi s per s onal know l edge, as he w as w i t h Pr es t on on the day

### Un less oth erwise n oted , R& R andH unter w ill b e referre d to collectiv ely as “R &R .” 2 

### 8 bef or e and da y of

t he acci den tunt i l Pr es t on depart ed f r om B r ooks ’ s hous e. T her ef or e, W ool f’ s t es t i m ony w as nothear s ay. ¶15. T he t r i al cour t det erm i ned t hat t he evi dence w as r el evant and conduct ed a bal anci ng tes t pu rsu a n t t o R u le 4 0 3 , fin d in g tha t th e p ro b a tiv e v a lu e o u tw e ig h e d th e p re ju d icia l ef

fe c t. T he t es t i m ony w as r el evantbeca us e i tconce r ned the type of act i vi t y thatPr es t on w as i nv olved i n p ri or t o the acci den tand w hat i m pact t hat act i vity m ay hav e had on his al ertness att he t i m e of

t he ac ci dent . T he evi dence w as r el evant , and the pr obat i ve val ue outw ei ghed th e p re ju d icia l ef

fe c t b e c a u se it c o n c e rn e d th e iss u e o f p ro x im a te c a u se a n d p o ten tial fa u lt. B . T oxi col ogy expert s C arm en M cI nt i re and M i chael W eaver ¶16. C ar l a al s o ar gues t hat t he t r i al cour t err ed by denyi ng her m ot i on i n l i m i ne pert ai ni ng to e v id e n c e b y R & R ’s e x p e rt, M ich a e l W e a v e r, th a t P re sto n h a d m e th a m p h e ta m in e in h is bl ood atthe t i m e of

the col l i s i on. R& R as s ert s t hatt hi s t es t i m ony s uppor t s i t s t heory of how 2 th e a c c id e n t o c c u rr e d . T h e trial c o u rt d e n ied C a rla ’s m o tio n in lim in e to e x c lu d e th is evi dence on t he s ame bas i s a s i tdeni ed W ool f , the pr obat i ve val ue of

evi dence conce r ni ng m ethamphet ami ne i n t he bl ood of the dec eas ed atthe t i m e of the ac ci dentw as not s u b s ta n tia lly o u tw e ig h e d b y th e d a n g e r o f u n fa irp re ju d ic e p u rs u a n t to R u le 4 0 3 . ¶ 1 7 . T w o to x ico lo g y e x p e rts w e re q u a lified a n d tes tified c o n c e rn in g P re sto n ’s b lo o d tes t. C arm en M cI nt i r e ( M cI nti re) , a M i ssi ssi pp i C ri m e L abo rat ory t ox i cologi st , t es t i f i ed f orC ar l a. M i chae l W eave r( W eave r ) , a f or m erM i s s i s s i ppi C r i m e Lab t oxi col ogi s t , t est i fi ed f ort he def ens e. A ti s s ue w as M cI nt i r e’ s re por tconce r ni ng Pr es t on’ s bl ood t es t . She t es t i f i ed that

### 9

s he had pe r f

or m ed tw o t es t s on Pr es t on’ s bl ood: ( 1) an i m m unoas s ay t es t , and ( 2) a gas chr om at ogr aph mass s pectr om et ert es t( m as s s pectr a) . B as ed on heran a l ys i s , M cI nt i r e s t at ed thats he had f

ound no crys t al m eth i n Pr es t on’ s bl ood. H err epor ts how ed thatPr es t on had onl y caf f ei ne i n hi s bl ood. H ow ever , s he s t at ed thatt he r es ul t s of t he mass s pectr a t es thad
so m e fe a tu re s th a t w e re in d ica tiv e o f m e th a m p h e tam in e , b u t “th e y d id n ’t m e e t cr iteria
n e e d e d to b e a b le to sa y fo r su re th a t th a t’ s w h a t w a s in fa c t p re se n t. S o I re p o rte d it negat i ve. ” M cI nt i r e al s o t es t i f i ed t o t he ef

f ect s of m ethamphet ami ne, an i ni t i al f eel i ng of euphor i a a nd exci t abi l i t y f ol l ow ed by f

eel i ngs of

depr es s i on, f

at i gue, anxi ety, i r r i t abi l i t y, and eventual uncons ci ous nes s . She al so st at ed t hata per s on coul d have de l ayed pe r cept i on as a re s u lt o f t h e d ru g u s e . ¶18. W eave r , on t he otherhand, t es t i f i ed thati n hi s opi ni on, metha mphe t a mi ne w as pr es ent in P reston ’s blo o d . W ea v e r s a id th a t h e b ase d h is op inion o n the io n s p rese n t i n P reston ’s bl ood and t he t es t i m ony f r om W ool f

thatPr es t on ha d s m oked crys t al met h. H e al s o t es t i f i ed
c o n c e rn in g the eff

e c ts o f m e th a m p h e tam in e o n a p e rso n ’s b o d y . H is te stim o n y o n th e e ffe c ts o f t h e d ru g w a s s im ila r t o th a t o f M c In tir e . ¶19. T he t r i al cour tdi d noter rby admi t t i ng W eave r ’ s expertt es t i m ony on w hether Pr es t on had met hamphet ami ne i n hi s bl ood. B oth expert s w er e qual i f i ed, and C ar l a di d notobj ect t o W eave rbe i ng qua l i f

i ed as an expe r t . “O nce a w i t nes s i s qual i f i ed as an expe r tt o r ender expertt es t i m ony, t hen i tis w i t hi n t he pr ovi nce of t he tr i erof

f actt o gi ve w ei ghtand
cr edi bi l i ty t o t he t es t i m ony. ” P a lm e r v. A n de rs o n In firm a ry B e n e v o len t A ss 'n , 656 So. 2d 7 9 0 , 7 9 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 ). T h is C o u rtha s he ld tha t exp ert op inion s are o n ly ad v isory in n ature
a n d a re n o t b in d in g o n a tr ie r o f f a c t. Fli ght L ine, I nc. v. T anksley , 608 So. 2d 1149, 1166

### 10

( M i s s . 1992) . “The j ur y m ay cr edi tt hem or notas they appe arent i t l ed, w ei ghi ng and j udgi ng th e e x p e r t ' s o p i n i o n i n t h e c o n t e x to f a l l o f t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e c a s e a n d ‘ t h e j u r y ' s o wn gener al know l edge of

af f ai r s . . . . ’ ” Id . ( quot i ng Schoppe v. Applied Chem s . D i v. , 418 So. 2d 833, 837 ( M i s s . 1982) ) . T hus , t he tr i al cour tdi d noterrby admi t t i ng W eave r ’ s t es t i m ony conce rni ng Pr es t on’ s bl ood, as i tw as r el evant , i tw as m or e pr obat i ve than pr ej udi ci al , and i tw as s uppor t ed by W ool f’ s t es t i m ony. To the ext entthatW eave r ’ s t es t i m ony di f f er ed f r om th a t of M c In tire’ s, tha t w a s a n issu e o f cr e d ib ili ty to b e res o lv e d b y the ju ry . Fli gh t L ine, 6 0 8 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 6 6 . T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. 2 . A ll eg ed d ru g s fou n d in th e d ec ea sed ’s p a n ts ¶20. C ar l a next cont ends t hat t he t r i al cour t err ed pur s uant t o R ul es 401, 402, and 403 by all o w ing M artha F ly an d R ac h el Fo ster, P reston ’s m o ther a n d sist er, r esp ec ti v ely, t o test if y abouta w hi t e subs t ance found i n P r es t on’ s pant s pockett w o m onths af t erhi s death. T he tr i al
cour tgr ant ed C ar l a’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne t o l i m i tt he t es t i m ony of F l y as t o t he s ubs t ance f ound i n Pr es t on’ s poc ket . H ow ever , ba s ed on Fos t er ’ s purpor t ed expe r i ence w i t h crys t al m eth, t he trial c o u rt a llo w e d h e r to tes tify a b o u t th e su b sta n c e fo u n d in P re sto n ’s p o c k e t p u rsu a n t to R ul e 701. ¶21 . M i ssi ssi pp i R ule of E vidence 7 01 st at es: If th e w itn ess is no t t esti fyin g as a n ex p ert, the w itn ess’s testi m o n y in the form o f op inion s o r i n feren ce s is l im it ed to tho se o p inion s o r infere n ce s w h ich a re ( a) r at i on al l y bas ed on the per cept i on of t he w i t nes s , ( b) hel pf

ul t o the cl ear under s t andi ng of

t he t es t i m ony ort he det erm i nat i on of a f acti n i s s ue, and ( c) notbas ed on s ci ent i f

i c, t echni cal , orot hers peci al i zed know l edge w i t hi n the s cope of 702.

### 11

¶2 2. A t t r i al , Fl y s t a t e d t ha t s he ha d r e c e i ve d Pr e s t on ’ s c l othi ng f r om t he f

un e r a l ho me, i ncludi ng his pan t s. S he h ad p l aced them i n the t runk of her car . A ft er a num ber of w eeks, F ly v iew e d th e c lo th in g a n d fo u n d a p las tic b a g w ith a w h ite s u b sta n c e in P re sto n ’s p a n ts pocket . She cal l ed Fos t ert o come and l ook atthe i t em. Fost ert es t i f i ed thats he w as f

ami l i ar w i th how crys t al m eth l ooked and s m el l ed, havi ng s m oked i tas a t eena ger . Fost ert es t i f i ed thatthe s ubs t ance found i n Pr es t on’ s pant s w as crys t al m eth. H ow ever , the s ubs t ance w as fl u s h e d d o w n th e to ile t a n d w a s n o t te s te d . ¶ 2 3 . T h e trial c o u rt d id n o t e rr in a llo w in g tes tim o n y th a t th e su b sta n c e in P re sto n ’s p a n ts
w as crys t al m eth pur s uantt o R ul e 701. Fost erst at ed t hats he w as f ami l i arw i t h crys t al m eth, h a v in g s m o k e d it a s a tee n a g e r. S h e sta ted th a t sh e k n e w w h a t itlo o k e d lik e a n d w h a t it
s m el l ed l i ke. Fost eractual l y s aw the s ubs t ance thatherm otherfoun d and opene d t he packa ge and s m el l ed i t . T he s ubs t ance s m el l ed l i ke am m oni a, as does crys t al m eth. Fost er concl uded thatt he s ubs t ance w as crys t al m eth. ¶24. T he t es t i m on y fal l s w i t hi n t he par amet er s of R ul e 701, beca us e the t es t i m ony w as r at i onal l y bas ed on the per cept i ons of Fost er ; i tw as hel pf

ul t o t he j ury f

ora cl ear under s t andi ng of

t he t es t i m ony and the det erm i nat i on of a f acti n i s s ue, thatbei ng w hether Pr es t on had expe r i ence d any ef f ect s of drug us e att he t i m e of

t he ac ci dent ; and the t es t i m ony w as notbas ed on s ci ent i f i c, t echni cal , orothers peci al i zed know l edge w i t hi n the s cope of R ul e 702. Fur the r , Fl y’ s a ndFos t er ’ s t es t i m ony corr obor at ed W ool f’ s t es t i m ony t o t he ext ent thatt he drugs w er e di vi ded atBrooks ’ s hous e and pl ace d i nt o pl as t i c bags . T hi s t es t i m ony al s o hel ped r ef

ut e B r ooks ’ s tes t i m ony thathe di d nots ee a ny drugs and no one ha d us ed d ru g s in h is h o m e o n th e d a y o f t h e a c c id e n t. T h is is s u e is w ith o u t m e ri t.

### 12

3. W eav er’s tes ti m on y o n the eff ects of dru g u se ¶25. C ar l a ar gues t hatt he t r i al c our te r r ed by a l l ow i ng W eave rt o t es t i f y t o t he ef

f ect s of the us e of

m ethamphet ami ne on Pr es t on’ s body. Speci f i cal l y, W eave rt es t i f

i ed that , bas ed on the t es t i m ony of

W ool f and the r es ul t s of

t he mass s pectr a t es t , Pr es t on “coul d have” been f at i gued, exper i enci ng del ayed pe r cept i on, and had a del ayed r eac t i on. Fur t her , s he ar gues th a t R & R fa ile d to ra is e th is is s u e in d is c o v e ry . ¶26. T he t r i al cour t det erm i ned t hat i t had not m ade a pr i or rul i ng on t he i s s ue. W hi l e the tr i al cour tacknow l edged thati thad l i m i t ed s om e evi dence on t he i s s ue of vi s i bi l i t y, i thad notrul ed on the i s s ue of f at i gue. C arl a ar gued thatt he t es t i m ony conce r ni ng f at i gue or del ayed pe r cept i on orr eac t i on al l w entt o the i s s ue of vi s i bi l i t y. T he tr i al cour tdi s agr eed a nd
a llo w e d th is te s tim o n y . ¶27. A s t o not i f

yi ng C ar l a of t he pot ent i al t es t i m ony of W eave r , t he recor d ref l ect s t hat R &R f i l e d a d e s i g n a t i o n o f

e x p e r twi t n e s s e s wh i c h c o n t a i n e d t h e e x a c tt e s t i m o n y th a tR &R
e licite d fro m W e a v e r o n the sta n d . W e a v e r als o h a d su b m itt e d an aff id a v it. In h is e x p e rtw i tnes s t es t i m ony des i gnat i on and af f i davi t , W eave rst at ed t hat , base d on P r es t on s m oki ng m ethamphet ami ne, hi s s t ayi ng aw ake the ni ghtbef or e t he ac ci dent , and the ac ci dent
occurr i ng ata poi nti n t i m e w hen mostof t he drugs had bee n el i m i nat ed f r om Pr es t on’ s body, Pr es t on w oul d have e xper i ence d f at i gue and c om pr om i s ed per cept i on and r eac t i on w hen he
o p era ted th e v eh icl e. C arla’s co n tention that sh e h ad n o n o ti ce o f th is asp ec t of W ea v er’s tes tim o n y is w ith o u t m e rit. ¶28. A s f

orCar l a’ s c ont ent i on thatthe t r i al cour terr ed by admi t t i ng W eave r ’ s t es t i m ony conce rni ng P r es t on’ s poss i bl e st at e of f at i gue and de l ayed pe r cept i on and r eac t i on abi l i t i es

### 13

as i m perm i s s i bl e underR ul es 702 and 703 and Rul es 401, 402, and 403, thi s i s s ue i s w i thout
m er i t . Fi r s t , C ar l a di d notobj ectt o W eave r ’ s us e of t he w or ds “coul d have” as being a n im p ro p e r le g a l sta n d a rd p u rsu a n t to M iss iss ip p i R u les o f E v id e n c e 7 0 2 a n d 7 0 3 . C a rla d id
o b ject th at R & R fa iled to p rov ide a n ex p ert op inion o n the s u b ject an d that the tri al co u rt pr evi ous l y had l i m i t ed t es t i m ony aboutw hatPr es t on w oul d have s een on the ni ghtof t he
ac cide n t. A s p rev iou sly de term ined , C arla w as p rov ided no ti ce of th e c o n tents o f W ea v er’s expertopi ni on, w hi ch i ncl uded the i s s ue of f at i gue. T he t r i al cour tdet erm i ned t hati thad not
m ad e a p ri o r ruli n g li m it ing t esti m o n y on th e issue of fati g u e. C arla’s o b jecti o n w as m o re rel at ed to a l i nk betw een fat i gu e and vis i bil i t y. C arl a’s cou nsel argued that “[ W eaver’s ] goi ng t o t al k aboutf

at i gue and he i s goi ng t o say thatt he f at i gue coul d have ha d s om ethi ng to d o w ith the v isib ili ty .” T h e trial c o u rt o v e rru led th e o b jec tio n o n th o se g ro u n d s. W h ile C ar l a obj ect ed t o W eave r ’ s t es t i m ony on t hi s i s s ue, s he di d notobj ectt o W eave rt es t i f yi ng th a t P re sto n “ c o u ld h a v e ” b e e n fa tig u e d a s a n im p ro p e r le g a l sta n d a rd . S e c o n d , W e a v e r d id
n o t sta te th e se o p in io n s in re latio n to P re sto n ’s p e rso n a l v isib ili ty a t th e tim e o f th e a c c id e n t, as argued b y C ar l a att r i al . T hi r d, W eave rw as des i gnat ed as an expe r tw i t houtobj ect i on. Four th, W eave rbas ed hi s opi ni on on the bl ood t es tper f or m ed by M cI nt i r e, another t ox i c ol og i s t , a nd the t e s t i mony of W oo l f , who was wi t h Pr e s t on o n t he d a y bef or e and the day of t he acc i dent . Fi f

t h, bot h t oxi col ogi s t s , M cI nt i r e and W eave r , t es t i f i ed conc erni ng t he init ial effec ts of m etha m p h etam ine o n a p erso n ’s bo d y an d it s after affec ts. S ixth, W o o lf’s and W eave r ’ s t es t i m ony r ebut t ed the t es t i m ony of St eve Brooks , a w i t nes s i n C ar l a’ s cas e- i nc h ief. B ro o k s s tate d th a t P re sto n w a s a slo w a n d c a re fu l d riv e r. In ad d iti o n , h e sta ted th a t, on the day of

t he ac ci dent , Pr es t on ha d s l eptatB r ooks ’ s hous e unt i l m i dday, and no drugs

### One vi olati on was for im prope r hiring pape rwor

k. R&R ac tually hired an em ploye e 3 

### prio r to th e accident, ho wev er, it app ears that th e emplo yee n ever dro ve a truck until almo st a year after th e accident. 14 w er e us ed i n hi s hous e. F i nal l y, w e addr es s ed C ar l a’ s ar gum entw i t h r egar d t o r el evanc y and pr obat i ve val ue outw ei ghi ng pr ej udi ci al ef f ecti n t he pr evi ous i s s ue. A ccor di ngl y, t he tr i al
c o u rt d id n o t e rr b y a d m ittin g th is e v id e n c e . 4. Excl us i on o f

R & R ’ s c ar r i e r r at i ng ¶29. C ar l a ar gues t hat t he t r i al cour t err ed by excl udi ng evi dence of R & R ’ s carr i err at i ng. She cont ends t hatt he r at i ng w as r el evantbecause i tshow ed a pa t t ern and pr act i ce of not foll o w i ng the F M C S R s, and i tw as a proxim at e cause of t he acci den t . T he t ri al co u rt excl uded the evi dence , fi nd i ng i tt oo r emot e t o have r el evanc e t o t he i s s ue i nvol ved i n t he l i t i gat i on athand. ¶30. C ar l a di d nots peci f i cal l y i dent i f

y the vi ol at i ons a ti s s ue. T he carr i err at i ng ati s s ue w as f orvi ol at i ons occurr i ng af t ert he dat e of

Pr es t on’ s w r eck, and n on e o f t he vi ol at i ons i nvol ved a vi ol at i on f

ornon- us e of

r ef l ect i ve t ape. F urther , the over al l carr i err at i ng w as

3
s at i s f act or y. N ot w i t hs t andi ng t hi s , t he carr i erra t i ng w as notr el evantunderR ul e 401 t o t he l i t i gat i on thatar os e f

r om Pr es t on’ s death. Car l a’ s m ai n cont ent i on w as t hatt he tr act or - t r ai l er di d nothave a ny r ef

l ect i ve t ape on the bac k panel . Fur t her , t he t r i al c our tga ve an i ns t ruct i on thats t at ed thatR& R and H unt erha d vi ol at ed t he FM C SR s a nd w er e negl i gent . T her ef or e, the tr i al cour tdi d noterrby excl udi ng the ca r r i err at i ng. 5. E xcl usi on of

H unte r’ s dri vi ng recor d

### 15

¶31. C ar l a s oughtt o have H unt er ’ s dr i vi ng re cor d adm i t t ed att r i al . She ar gues t hatt he tr i al
cour ter r ed by excl udi ng t he dr i vi ng re cor d becaus e hi s re cor d of FM C SR vi ol at i ons s how ed a patt ern and pr act i ce of vi ol at i ng the r egul at i on s. I n hi s depos i t i on t es t i m ony, H unt er admi t t ed thath e h ad recei ved a vi ol at i on pr i ort o the ac ci dent . H unt er ’ s truck w as pl ace d

“ o u t- o f- s e rv ic e ” fo r a le a k in h is fu e l ta n k , w h ic h h e im m e d ia te ly h a d fi x e d . ¶32. T he t r i al c our te xcl uded t he vi ol at i on, f i ndi ng thati tw as notr el evantt o the i s s ue of the w ron g ful-de ath c ase an d too rem o te i n ti m e to h av e a n y relev an ce to the ca se. F u rth er, th e trial c o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t th e n u m b e r a n d se v e rity o f th e v io latio n s d id n o t d e m o n stra te
a ro u tin e o r p ra c tice su ffic ien t to su p p o rt C a rla ’s a rg u m e n ts. W e fin d tha t th e tri a l co u rt d id
n o te rrb y e x c l u d i n g Hu n t e r ’ s d r i v i n g r e c o r d . T h e tr i a l c o u r ti n s t ru c t e d th e j u r y th a tR &R
a n d Hu n t e rh a d b e e n n e g l i g e n tf o rv i o l a t i n g F MCS R s . T h e r e f o r e , t h e j u r y k n e w th a tR &R and H unt erhad vi ol at ed the re gul at i ons . A s the f uel l eak i n ques t i on w as unr el at ed i n any m annert o t he ac ci dentand w hetherthe abs ence of r ef l ect i ve t ape c aus ed the acci dent , t he tr ia l c o u rt p ro p e rl y e x c lu d e d th is e v id e n c e p u rs u a n t to R u le s 4 0 1 a n d 4 0 3 . 6 . P laintiff’s ex p er t testi m o n y o n tail li g h ts ¶33. C ar l a ar gues t hat t he t r i al cour t err ed by excl udi ng t w o of her expert s f r om t es t i f

yi ng on the i s s ue of

t he t ai l l i ghtvi s i bi l i t y. She al s o cont ends thatthe tr i al cour terr ed by al l ow i ng tw o o f R & R ’s la y w itn e ss e s to re n d e r o p in io n s o n taillig h t v isib ili ty . T h e iss u e a ro se in
conn e c t i on wi t h ph ot og r a ph s tha td e pi c t e d whata pp e a r e d t o be d i r to n t he t a i l l i gh t s of t he R & R truck on the ni ghtof t he acc i dent . T he t r i al c our tgr ant ed R & R ’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne on th is iss u e , fin d in g th a t an e x p e rt o p in io n w a s n o t n e c e ss a ry to d e ter m in e w h a t is d e p icte d in a phot ogr aph. M or e s peci f i cal l y, t he tr i al cour ts t at ed:

### 16

W hat evert he s t atus of

t he t ai l l i ght s on the tr ai l eri m m edi at el y f ol l ow i ng t he acc i dent , s uch s t atus i s de pi ct ed i n the phot ogr aphs t aken by the M i s s i s s i ppi H i gh w ay P at rol . Iti s this cou rt ’s v i ew thati tdo es not t ake an exp ertt o ad vis e a j ur y as t o w hati s depict ed i n a phot ogr aph. T he j ury can vi ew t he phot ogr aph i t s el f

and make i t s ow n de t erm i nat i on a s w hati s depi ct ed ther ei n. T h u s, th e c o u rt fin d s th a t an o p in io n fro m a n e x p e rt a s to w h a t is d e p icte d in a phot ogr aph w oul d notbe of as s i s t ance t o t he j ury. I n o th e rwo r d s , t h e t r i a l c o u r tp r o h i b i t e d a n y e x p e r to p i n i o n s th a tth e t a i l l i g h t s o f th e R &R truck ha d dirton t hem or w ere dirt y atthe t i m e of t he acci den t . C arl a cl ai m s t hat her exp ert s, T i m C orbi t tand D ane M axw el l , w oul d ha ve opi ned aboutthe di r ton t he t ai l l i ght s a nd how th a t d irt w o u ld h a v e a ffe c ted th e v isib ili ty o f th e lig h ts a t n ig h t. T h e trial c o u rt, i n fa c t, did notpr ecl ude C ar l a f

r om as ki ng herexpert s , i n a hypot het i cal si tuat i on, aboutt he ef f ect s of d irt o n taillig h t v isib ili ty . T h e trial c o u rt sta ted th a t th e e x p e rt “ c a n talk a b o u t if, in fa c t, there w as d irt on the tail li g h t, w h at effec t i t w o u ld h av e o n the v isi b il ity o f th e trail er. E s s ent i al l y, a hypothet i cal . ” ¶34. T hi s C our tf

i nds thatthe t r i al c our tdi d note r rby r ef us i ng a l l expert s , bot h C ar l a’ s and R & R ’ s , f

r om t es t i f

yi ng conce rni ng d i rton the t ai l l i ght s ort hatt he t ai l l i ght s w er e di r ty. O pi ni ons gi ven by expe r tw i t nes s es ar e des i gned t o pr ovi de “s ci ent i f i c, t echni cal , orot her
s peci al i zed know l edge” t o as s i s tt he tr i erof fa ctt o under s t and t he evi dence ordet erm i ne a f acti n i s s ue. M i s s . R . E vi d. 702. T hi s i s s ue, di r ton the t ai l l i ght s , w as notof a natur e that
r equi r ed an e xperto pini on , as t he j ury had enough know l edge t o di s cern w hethert he phot ogr aphs depi ct ed di r ton the t ai l l i ght s . Fur t herm or e, i tw as es t abl i s hed thatnei ther C o rb ittn o r M a x w e ll w a s p re se n t at th e sc e n e o f th e a c c id e n t, th e re fo re , the y h a d n o firsthan d, pers on al kno w l edg e of t he con dit i on of t he t ai l l i gh t s di rect l y aft er the acc i den tt o assi st th e trier o f fa c t, no r d id th e e x p e rts in sp e c t th e tra iler im m e d iate ly a fte r th e a c c id e n t. T h is

### 17

is n o t to s a y th a t th e e x p e rts h a d to b e p re se n t o r to in sp e c t th e tru c k im m e d iate ly , b u t o n ly th a t th e re w a s n o o th e r b a sis to p e rm it th e m to te stify a b o u t th e c o n d iti o n o f th e taillig h ts in th e p h o to g ra p h s. A c c o rd in g ly , this iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. ¶35. A s t o Car l a’ s a r gum entthatthe t r i al c our te rr oneous l y ha d perm i t t ed l ay w i t nes s es f or th e d e fe n s e to tes tify o n th e c o n d iti o n o f th e taillig h ts, th is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. W h ile C ar l a does noti dent i f

y w hi ch l ay w i t nes s es ar e i n ques t i on, pr es um abl y s he means T r ooper R onal d Shi ve and Char l es R i char d. B oth of thes e w i t nes s es w er e att he sc ene of t he ac ci dent
m om ent s af

t er t he col l i s i on. T r ooperShi ve t es t i f i ed abouthi s per s onal know l edge a nd
o b s e rv a tio n s o f t h e c o n d itio n s a t th e sc e n e o f t h e a c c id e n t. See M i s s . R . E vi d. 601 and 602. H e sta ted th a t h e h a d n o d iffic u lty se e in g th e tra iler, a n d it h a d fo u r lig h ts o n it. T h e lig h ts
w ere i n p roper w orki ng order, w ere br i gh t , and had l ense s o n them . T rooper S hive al so s ta te d th a t h e c o u ld s e e th e lig h ts fr o m a d is ta n c e . ¶ 3 6 . R ic h a rd a ls o te s tif ie d a b o u t h is p e rs o n a l k n o w le d g e a n d o b s e rv a tio n s . See M i s s . R. E vi d. 601 and 6 02. R i char d s t at ed thathe had obs erved the truck l i ght s w or ki ng w hen H unt erl ef

tt he R & R l otand l at eratthe scene of the ac ci dent . O nce he hear d aboutt he
acc i dent , R i char d s ai d t hathe bega n dr i vi ng t o t he sc ene a nd s aw the tr ai l ert ai l l i ght s f r om a mi l e aw ay. R i char d s t at ed that , af t ert he ac ci dent , t he t ag l i ghtand thr ee s m al l l i ght s on t he bot t om and i n t he m i ddl e of t he t r ai l erhad t o be re pl ace d, becaus e they w er e t orn of f i n t he col l i s i on. B eca us e T r ooperShi ve and R i char d t es t i f i ed conce r ni ng thei rf

i r s t - hand, per s onal know l edge a nd obs ervat i ons of t he ac ci de nts cene , the tr i al cour tdi d noterrby perm i t t i ng them t o t es t i f

y conce r ni ng thei robs ervat i ons of t he vi s i bi l i t y of

t he truck t ai l l i ght s af

t erthe
a c c id e n t.

### The FMCSRs st at es that “ [a ] uthoriz ed pe rs onnelsha lldec lareand m ar k “o ut of 4 

### service ” any mot or ve hic lewhic h by re as on of its me chanic alcondi ti on or l oading wo uld likely ca usean a cc ide nt or

bre akdown. ” 49 C. F.R. § 396.9( c) (1) .

18 7. E xcl usi on of

t rai l er’ s “out of

s ervi ce” s t at us and causat i on ¶3 7. C ar l a ar gues t ha t t he t r i a l c ou r t e r r e d by e xc l ud i ng he r e xp e r t , M a r k D un l ap, f r om t es t i f yi ng t hatt he truck w as “outof s ervi ce” atthe t i m e of the col l i s i on due t o a l ack of
r ef l ect i ve t ape. S he ar gued t hatt he l ack of t ape w as i n di r ectvi ol at i on of the FM C SR s and, 4 th e re fo re , th e tru c k s h o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n o n th e ro a d w a y . ¶ 3 8 . T h e trial c o u rt q u a lified D u n lap a s a n e x p e rt in S tate a n d F e d e ra l M o to r C a rrie r S a fe ty C odes . A tt r i al , C ar l a pr of f er ed the t es t i m ony of

D unl ap on the i s sue o f w het herthe truck
w as “out of s ervi ce. ” T he p rof fer ed tes t i m on y w as as f oll ow s: Q . M ark [D u n lap ], w o u ld y o u tel l th is C o u rtw h at yo u r fi n d ing s are r egar di ng w hethe rornott hi s t rucki ng company shoul d have be en p e rm itt e d to h a v e th is v e h icle o n th e ro a d th e d a y o f th e a c c id e n t? A . Shoul d nothave be en on the r oad i n t hatcondi t i on. Q . W h y n o t? A . D i d notm eett he r equi r ement s f orthe cons pi cui t y t ape, 393. 13. Q . O kay, and ca n you t el l us w hetherornotyou have an opi ni on r egar di ng w hetherornott hatt ruck and tr ai l erw er e i n s ervi ce oroutof s ervi ce? B as ed on the vi ol at i ons f orthe cons pi cui t y t ape? A . R i ght . T he truck – Q . – S cra tch truc k . Ju st th e trail er? A. T h e t r a il e rw a s n o t o u t o f s e r v ic e . H

o w e v e r, h a d

I c o m e a c r o s s it, I w ould have he ld i tdue to the f act i tw as a danger ous vi olat i on . Q . M eani ng you w oul d nothave a l l ow ed i tt o cont i nue? A . I w oul d nothave a l l ow ed i tt o cont i nue on the r oad. Q . G iv e u s y o u r o p in io n o n c a u sa tio n in re g a rd s to th e in ju rie s a s to Pr es t on U t z? A . T h e o n ly th in g th a t I c o u ld c o m m e n t o n is th e fa c t th e tru c k sh o u ld n e v e rh a v e b e e n o n t h e r o a d i n th e f i r s tp l a c e . Th a twou l d b e my caus at i on. Q . O kay . N o further que st i on s.

### 19

(E m p h a s is a d d e d .) ¶39. C ar l a cont ends t hatt he tr i al cour terr ed by fi nd i ng thatthi s i s s ue conc erned s tr i ct l i abi l i ty. I ns t ead, C ar l a cont ends t hat , once R & R and H unt eradmi t t ed thatt hey had vi ol at ed the FM C SR s , a vi ol at i on o f s t at e and f

eder al l aw , t he tr i al cour ts houl d have gr ant ed a p e re m p to ry in stru c tio n a s to liab ili ty in lieu o f th e n e g lig e n c e -p e r-s e in stru c tio n a n d sh o u ld have pe r m i t t ed hert o have e xpertt es t i m ony on caus at i on w i t h r egar d t o t he tr ai l erbei ng “out of s ervi ce. ” ¶ 4 0 . T h e tri a l co u rt, in the o rd e r g ra n tin g in p a rt an d d e n y in g in p a rt R & R ’s m o tio n to s tr i ke var i ous opi ni ons t o be of f er ed by Car l a’ s e xper tw i t nes s es , de t erm i ned thatal l of the expertw i tnes s es f

orC ar l a had a comm on t heme of str i ctl i abi l i t y agai ns tR & R , bas ed on her theory thatt he truck had no r ef l ect i ve t ape a nd, t her ef or e, i ts houl d no thave be en on the
r oadw ay. T he tr i al courts t at ed: C a u sa tio n - S trict L iab ili ty 1 7 . A co m m o n them e ru n n ing thro u g h a ll o f the o p inion s o f th e p lai n ti ff’ s expert s i s t hei rpos i t i on t hatbeca us e the truck f ai l ed t o have t he f eder al l y r equi r ed amountof r ef l ect i ve t ape on t he r earof the truck, the t ruck sh ou l d no th ave been o n the hi gh w ay, and thu s they conclude the d e fen da n ts a re lia b le fo r th e in ju r ie s a n d

d e a th o f th e p la in tif

f sim p ly b e c a u s e th e tr u c k

w a s o n th e r o a dw a

y . B y th is a rg u m e n t, th e p la in tif f seeks to im

po se stri ctl i ab i l i t

y ag ainst

the d ef end an t s. 18. St r i ctl i abi l i t y i s notpl ed i n t he compl ai nt . A l s o, t hi s cour ti s of t he opi ni on t hatt hi s cas e i s notone pr emi s ed on s t r i ctl i abi l i t y. A l t hough the v iolati o n o f fed era l r eg u lat ion s all eg ed b y the p lai n ti ff – the fail u re t o have r ef

l ect i ve t ape a t t ache d t o the r earof the t r ai l er– i s a f

act orthat m ay b e con si dered b y the j ury w hen asses si ng l i abil i t y, t here m ustexis t so m e c a su a l co n n e c tio n b e tw e e n th e a lleg e d v io latio n an d th e a c c id e n t. W ith o u t su c h a ca u sa l co n n e c tio n , it is th is c o u rt’s v iew th a t n o liab ili ty w oul d att ach t o t he def

endant s pr emi s ed onl y upon an al l eged vi ol at i on of f ederal or st at e regul at i on s.

### 20

19. Fort he r eas on s t at ed above, no expertw i l l be perm i t t ed t o opi ne orgi ve t es t i m ony t o t he ef

f ectthatthe s ubj ecttruck s houl d nothave been on t he hi ghw ay due t o i t s al l eged f ai l ure t o compl y w i t h f eder al regul at i on s. (E m p h asis ad d ed . ) ¶4 1. T he t r i a l c ou r t di d no t e r r by e xc l ud i ng D un l a p’ s e xp e r t t e s t i mony on w het hert he truck w as “ outof

s ervi ce. ” Base d on D unl ap’ s pr of f er ed t es t i m ony, he cl ear l y s t at ed thatt he truck w as notoutof

s ervi ce, al t ho ug h he w oul d have pl ace d i t“outof s ervi ce” had he insp ec ted it . N o tw ith stan d ing his t esti m o n y that the truc k w as n o t “ou t of serv ice,” this C o u rt has hel d t hatvi ol at i ons of tr af f i c l aw s , i n and of themsel ves , do notam ountt o str i ctl i abi l i ty. T hi s C our tr equi r es t hati n or dert o i ncurl i abi l i t y w hen a par t y i s negl i gent , t hatnegl i gence a ls o m u s t b e th e p ro x im a te c a u s e o f th e in ju ry . See Jones v. U

. S. Fid. and G uar. Co. , 822 So. 2d 946, 948 ( M i s s . 2002) ( “W e not e ouropi ni on i n R i c h a r ds o n v . Ada ms , 223 So. 2d 536, 537 ( M i s s. 1 96 9), es t abl i s hes thatthe vi ol at i on of a s t atut e demonstr at es a duty and b re a c h th e re o f, b u t n o t p ro x im a te c a u se o f in ju ry w h ich is a q u e stio n still left fo r th e ju ry to
a n sw e r” ); see al

so Choctaw Maid Far m s, I nc. v. H ailey , 82 2 S o. 2d 9 1 1 , 9 23 -24 (M i ss. 20 02 ) ( this C ou rth el d t hat no pu nit i ve dam ages w ere w arr anted w here there w as no “n exu s” betw een C hoct aw ’ s a l l eged gr os s ne gl i gence a nd the col l i s i on a nd w her e C hoct aw ’ s t r ai l er had an e xpi r ed t ag, w as ol d, and w as m i s s i ng a l og book, among ot herthi ngs ) . T hi s i s s ue is w ith o u t m e rit. 8. E xcl usi on of

expert t es t i m ony on vi s i bi l i t y and causat i on ¶ 4 2 . C o u p led w ith th e p re v io u s a rg u m e n t o n w h e th e r th e tru c k w a s “ o u t o f se rv ice ,” C a rla arg u es th at th e tri al co u rterred b y ex clud ing ex p ert t estim o n y fr o m M ark M o ri , M arkM o ri w a s n o t c a lle d a s a w itn e s s a t tr ia l. 5 

### 21 D u n lap, D an e M ax w ell , an d T im C o rbit t on the issu es o f (1) th e v isi b il ity of th e truc k , w h ere th e tru c k h a d n o re fl e c tiv e ta p e , a n d (2 ) c a u s a tio n . ¶43. R & R ar gu es, in part , thatC arl a’s compl ai ntw as bas ed on a theory of negl i gence . H ow ever , as t he ca s e pr ogr es s ed, R& R c ont ends thatC ar l a i nt ended t o pr es enta theory of
s tr i ctl i abi l i t y. R & R b ases i t s ` ar gum enton t he opi ni ons expr es s ed by M or i , D unl ap, and M axw el l . T he comm on r ootof Car l a’ s e xper t s ’ opi ni ons , R& R c l ai m s , w as thatt he tr ai l er w as i n vi ol at i on of the FM C SR s f orf ai l ur e t o have r ef

l ect i ve t ape, t her ef

or e, t he tr ai l erw as i l l egal l y on t he r oad att he t i m e of t he ac ci dent . F ur t her , had t he t r ai l ernotbeen on t he r oad, then the col l i s i on and Pr es t on’ s s ubs equentdeath neverw ould have occurr ed and,
c o n s e q u e n tly , R & R a n d H u n te r w e re lia b le fo r P re s to n ’s d e a th .

A . M ark M ori ¶ 4 4 . T h e trial c o u rt q u a lified M o ri a s a n e x p e rt tru c k d riv e r in p re trial p ro c e d u re s. C a rla 5
as s er t s t hatM or i ’ s expertr epor ts t at ed thatthe truck s houl d nothave be en on the r oad beca us e i thad no r ef

l ect i ve t ape on i t . M or i furt heropi ned t hati tw as r eckl es s t o have the truck on the r oad, and Pr es t on w as ki l l ed as a r es ul tof the truck being on the road w i th no
re fl e c tiv e ta p e , a s th e tru c k w a s b a re ly v is ib le a n d in v io la tio n o f t h e F M C S R s . ¶ 4 5 . A s fo r th e iss u e o f v isib ili ty , M o ri s tate d d u rin g h is d e p o sitio n te stim o n y th a t h e c o u ld nott es t i f y w hethera per s on ot hert han hi m s el f coul d have se en the tr ai l erw i t houtr ef l ect i ve t ape. I n keepi ng w i t h t his , M or i al s o s t at ed thathe w oul d have be en abl e t o s ee the tr ai l er

### 22

l i gh t s m ore than a half

m i l e aw ay un der si m i l ar con dit i on s on t he n i gh tof the acc i den t , tho se bei ng a f l atD el t a r oad i n t he w i nt ert i m e. ¶46. M or i al s o s t at ed i n hi s depos i t i on t hat t he t ruck w as r equi r ed t o have r ef l ect i ve t ape, ho w ever, pho t og raphs of the acc i den tshow ed the truck w i t ho ut any ref l ect i ve tape. B ecause the truck had no r ef

l ect i ve t ape, t he truck s houl d nothave be en on the r oad and the ac ci dent
w o u ld no t h av e h ap p en ed . W h en ask ed w h ethe r any of th o se issue s affe c ted th e tr ail er’s
v isib ili ty , M o ri sta ted “ W e ll, it –it w a sn ’t su p p o se d to b e o n th e ro a d , so w h e th e r it’s v isib le
o r n o t, i t – it’s n o t su p p o se d to b e o n th e ro a d .” M o ri a lso s tate d th a t R & R a n d H u n ter w o u ld be atf aul ti f t he truck w as on t he r oadw ay w i t houtr ef l ect i ve t ape, r egar dl es s of w hethert he truck w as vi s i bl e t o Pr es t on, beca us e the truck w as notl egal l y on the r oad. M or i w as not c a lle d a s a w itn e s s a t tr ia l. ¶4 7 . O n the issue o f v isi b il ity , the tr ial co u rt g ran ted R & R ’s req u e st to e x clud e M o ri ’s t es t i m ony. T he t r i al cour tr eas oned thatM or i ’ s opi ni on, t hat“[ b] y dr i vi ng atni ghtw i thout
r ef l ect i ve t ape on t he bac k of t he tr ai l er , the dr i verand oper at oral l ow ed the tr ai l ert o be
u n re c o g n iz a b le a t n ig h t f ro m th e re a r, t h u s a llo w in g it to b e s tru c k b y a fo ll o w in g c a r. I b eli ev e tha t i s w h at ha p p en ed in this ca se,” w as in ad m issi b le, in p art, b ec au se e x p ert t es t i m ony w as notneede d t o as s i s tt he j ury aboutdr i vi ng atni ghtbehi nd a tr act or - tr ai l er truck, as i ti s a comm on exper i ence . T he tr i al cour tf ur t hers t at ed: T hi s w i t nes s bas es hi s opi ni on t hat[ Pr es t on] di d nots ee the t r ai l erpr i m ar i l y, if n o t so lely , o n th e fa c t th a t th e re w a s a n a b se n c e o f re fle c tiv e o r c o n sp icu ity t ape on the bac k of

t he tr ai l er . I n the vi ew of t hi s cour t , s uch an opi ni on, bas ed s ol el y t her eon, i s notbas ed on s uf f i ci entf act s . L ogi cal l y, s uch an opi ni on w o u ld lead t o th e co n clus ion th at i n th e ab sen ce of refl ec ti v e tap e, itis i m pos s i bl e f

orany dr i vert o s ee a ny comm erci al t r ans por tt r act ort r ai l erat ni ght . Fort hes e r eas ons , M or i i s pre cl uded f r om t es t i f

yi ng as t o t he ca us e of

### 23

the ac ci dent . T o t hi s ext ent , t he mot i ons f ort he def

endant s t o s t r i ke the o p i n i o n o f

t h i s wi t n e s s i s GR ANT E D. B . M ark D unl ap ¶48. A s pr evi ous l y s t at ed, t he tr i al cour tqual i f i ed D unl ap as an expe r ti n St at e and Feder al M o to r C a rrie r S a fe ty C o d e s. D u n lap ’s e x p e rt re p o rt o p in e d th a t P re sto n ’s d e a th w a s d u e to t he t ruck n otb e i ng i n c ompl i a nc e wi t h t he FM CSR s . I n a dd i t i on , Dunl a p op i ne d t hatt he truck shoul d nothave been on t he r oad and t hati tposed a ha zar d t o any dr i verappr oachi ng the truck f

r om t he r ear . I n hi s depos i t i on t es t i m ony, D unl ap s t at ed thathe w as unabl e t o gi ve a n o p in io n o n v isib ili ty o n th e n ig h t o f th e a c c id e n t. “ W ith o u t b e in g th e re , I w o u ld n ’t b e a b le t o s a y . ” He a l s o s t a t e d t h a tt h e l a c k o f r e f l e c t i v e t a p e d o e s n o tma k e a v e h i c l e i n v i s i b l e . As di s cus s ed i n t he pr ece di ng i s s ue, D unl ap’ s pr of f er ed t es t i m ony att ri al on the i s s ue of
c a u sa tio n w a s th a t “[t]h e o n ly th in g th a t I c o u ld c o m m e n t o n is th e fa c t th e tru c k sh o u ld
n e v e r h a v e b e e n o n th e ro a d in th e fi rs t p la c e . T h a t w o u ld b e m y c a u s a tio n .” ¶49. T he tr i al courts t at ed: In r eview i ng t he d epo si ti o n s o f this w i t ness, i tapp ears t hat l i ke the w i t ness M o ri, D u n lap a n ticip a tes o ffe rin g o p in io n tes tim o n y co n c e rn in g th e v isib ili ty o f th e su b

jec t tru c k a t n ig h t [cita tio n o m itt e d ] an d th e c a u s e o f th e a c c id e n t. W hi l e the courtw i l l perm i tt hi s w i t nes s t o st at e opi ni ons as t o t he purpos e of cert ai n s t at e and f

eder al r egul at i ons , t he courtr emai ns of t he vi ew t hat t es t i m ony r egar di ng t he vi s i bi l i t y of t he t r ai l eratni ghtw i l l notas s i s tt he tr i er o f fa c t an d , a g a in , it d o e s n o t a p p e a r to th is c o u rt th a t th e re a re s u ffic ien t fa c ts an d /or d ata fo r th e w itn ess to test ify a s to w h ethe r the dec eas ed w oul d have been a bl e t o s ee the tr ai l erpr i ort o t he ac ci dentoras t o the cau s e of the acci dent . T hus , opi ni ons al ong thos e l i nes w i l l notbe perm i t t ed, and t o the ext entt he def

endant s ’ m ot i on seeks t o pr ohi bi tthi s w i t nes s f r om t es t i f

yi ng and/ orof f er i ng opi ni ons r egar di ng the vi s i bi l i t y of the t r ai l eratni ght , w hether the dec eas ed

w oul d have be en abl e t o s ee the t rai l erpr i ort o t he ac ci dent a n d / o rt h e c a u s e o f

t h e a c c i d e n t , s u c h mo t i o n i s h e r e b y GR ANT E D. C . D a n e M a x w e ll

### 24

¶50. T he tr i al courtqual i f i ed M axw el l as an ex perto n D epart m ent of T r ans por t at i on ( D O T ) r egul at i ons . M axw el l opi ned i n hi s r epor tt hatt he ca us e of Pr es t on’ s death w as oper at i ng the truck w i t houtr ef l ect i ve t ape. I n hi s de pos i t i on t es t i m ony, M axw el l s t at ed that the truck w as i nvi s i bl e w i t houtt he r ef l ect i ve t ape. I n addi t i on, M axw el l st at ed t hat , i n or der f orPr es t on t o have s een t he t ruc k, t he r ef l ect i ve t ape w oul d have ha d t o have be en on the bot t om a nd the t op r i ghta nd l ef tha nd c orner s of

the truck. H e s t at ed thati f r ef l ect i ve t ape w as onl y on t he bot t om of t he truck, t hen Pr es t on w oul d nothave be en abl e t o see t he truck b e c a u se it d id n o t co m p ly w ith th e re g u latio n s. W h e n a sk e d w h e th e r s trict c o m p lian c e w ith the r egul at i ons w as r equi r ed i n or derf orPr es t on “t o have a n aw ar enes s thatthe tr ai l erw as i n the hi ghw ay, ” M axw el l ans w er ed i n the af f i r m at i ve. I n ot herw or ds , the t ruck w oul d not have be en vi s i bl e t o Pr es t on, i n M axw el l ’ s opi ni on, be caus e i tw as noti n s t r i ctcompl i ance w i th the r egul at i ons . A tt ri al , M axw el l pr of f er ed t es t i m ony thatthe ca us e of the ac ci dent
w as a “[ v] i ol at i on of

t he cons pi cui t y r egul at i ons ” and “ [ t ] hatt he f aul tl i es w i t h t he D ef endant s . ” ¶51. L i ke M or i and D unl ap, t he t r i al cour texcl uded t es t i m ony fr om M axw el l on the i s s ues o f visibil ity an d ca u sati o n for the sam e re aso n s. T h e tr ial co u rtde term ined that there w ere in su ffic ien t fa c ts a n d /o r d a ta fo r M a x w e ll to tes tify w h e th e r P re sto n w o u ld h a v e b e e n a b le to s e e th e tr a ile r p ri o r t o th e a c c id e n t a n d w h a t w a s th e c a u s e o f t h e a c c id e n t.

D . T im C o rb it t ¶52 . T im C o rbit t w as o ffered as an ex perti n accident r econ struct i on . T he tr i al co u rt qu al i fi ed C orbi t tas f

oll ow s:

### Corbi tt , in re gard to t he “ si lhoue tt e e ff

ec t, ” s tate d: 6 

### Th is is mostlyhap pen ing at nig ht andwh en y ouhave areas of un lit or d imly lit roadbecau se of amb ient lig htin g fro m oth er areas it actuallyhid es trailers. The r ea sona

bledrive r, they approac h them , they don’ t rea lly noti cethe m, the y ar e not det er mining th eir

rateof c los ureon the m, al l t hey’ rese eing ar e r ed dots on thehori zon. 25 W hi l e thi s w i t nes s w i l l be perm i t t ed t o i nt erpr eta ny evi dence f ound or notf ound ( i.e . ski d m arks ) att he sc ene of t he ac ci dentand of

f ert es t i m ony and opi ni ons r egar di ng s uch evi dence and how s uch evi dence r el at es t o t he a c c id e n t, th e c o u rt re m a in s o f th e o p in io n th a t th e re a re in su ffic ien t fa c ts and/ ordat a t o al l ow t he w i t nes s t o gi ve t es t i m ony and/ orpr ovi de opi ni ons as to w h ethe r the dec eas ed actu all y saw th e tru ck prior t o th e im p ac t, T h is w i tnes s w i l l be perm i t t ed t o o ff er t es t i m ony r egar di ng t he Feder al M ot or C arr i erSaf

ety R egul at i ons , thei rappl i cat i on t o t he f act s of thi s cas e and a ny def i ci enci es r egar di ng compl i ance w i t h s uch r egul at i ons by such truck and/ or trucki ng f

i r m . A s w i t h the otherw i t nes s es , the cour ti s of t he v i ew t hat opi ni ons r egar di ng t he vi s i bi l i t y, orl ack of vi s i bi l i ty, of

t he truck atni ght w oul d notas s i s tt he tr i erof f act . F or t hatr eas on, t hi s w i t nes s w i l l notbe p e rm itt e d to o ffe r te stim o n y o r o p in io n s a s to w h e th e r t h is tru c k w a s v isib le t o the dec eas ed

pri ort o t he ac ci dent . H ow ever , t he w i t nes s w i l l be perm i t t ed t o of f eran opi ni on r egar di ng t he vi s i bi l i t y of the tr ai l erf

r om the poi ntof

vi ew o f a rea so n ab ly p rud en t dri v er, i n c lu d in g h o w far aw ay from the trail er a re a so n a b le p ru d e n t d riv e r w o u ld h a v e b e e n a b le to s e e th e tra iler a t n ig h t if it w as pr oper l y equi pped w i t h r ef l ect i ve t ape. (E m p h asis in o ri g inal. ) ¶53. A s t o vi s i bi l i t y, C orbi t t t es t i f i ed at t r i al t hat a r eas onabl y prudent per s on w oul d have
s een onl y the l i ght s of

t he t r ai l eron t he ni ghtof the acc i denta s oppos ed t o the ent i r e out l i ne o f th e tra iler, h a d it h a d th e re q u ire d c o n sp icu ity tap e . H e a lso tes tified to a “ silh o u e tte effec t” th at oc cu rs m ainly at nig h t i n d im ly li t areas w h ich a cts t o h ide th e trail er. 6 ¶54. C orbi t tal s o s t at ed thathe had re vi ew ed t he FM C SR s , and t hatR & R had an obl i gat i on to h av e reflecti v e tap e o n th e tru ck on th e n igh t o f th e ac cide n t. C o rbit t testified th a t a
r eas onabl y prudentper s on w oul d nothave be en abl e to see t he truck att he t i m e of the

### 26

a c c id e n t. H e s tate d th a t to s o lv e “ re d d o t c o n fu sio n ,” w h e re lig h ts a p p e a r a s re d d ish d o ts in the di s t ance , cons pi cui t y t ape s houl d be added t o a vehi cl e. A l s o, C orbi t tt es t i f i ed that
cons pi cui ty t ape w oul d ai d t o al er ta r eas onabl y prudentper s on t hata tr ai l eri s ahea d on t he
r oadw ay. I n gener al , he st at ed t hatre f l ect i ve t ape w oul d gi ve gr eat ervi s i bi l i t y of the tr ai l er a t a fu rt h e r d is ta n c e . ¶55. T he t r i al cour t di d not err by l i m i t i ng al l expert s ’ opi ni ons on t he i s s ue of w hethert he tru ck w as v isi b le t o P reston o n the n igh t of th e a cc iden t. M o ri an d D u n lap stat ed in o n e fo rm o r a n o th e r th a t th e y w e re n o t p re se n t a t th e tim e o f th e a c c id e n t a n d , the re fo re , co u ld n o t sta te
w hatPr es t on m ay have s een. M axw el l s t at ed thatt he truck w as i nvi s i bl e bec aus e i tl acke d the r ef l ect i ve t ape. H ow ever , M axw el l w as of t he opi ni on t hati f

t he truck w as i n compl i ance w ith th e F M C S R s, th e n th e tru c k w o u ld h a v e b e e n v isib le. T h e trial c o u rt p e rm itt e d C o rb itt t o t es t i f y att r i al as t o vi s i bi l i t y w i t h r egar d t o w hata r eas onabl y prudentpe r s on, notPr es t on i n par t i cul ar , w oul d have s een on the ni ghtof the ac ci dent . T he tr i al co urt ’s deci s i on, and it s m o re len ient a d m issi o n o f testi m o n y fro m C o rbit t on the issu e o f visibil ity , w as p rop er. N one of the expertw i t nes s es ha d the r equi s i t e know l edge t o know w hatPr es t on may orm ay nothave s een on the ni ghtof t he ac ci dent . A ny opi ni on on w hatPr es t on w oul d have s een w o u ld b e m e re s p e c u la tio n . ¶56. T he j ur y hear d t es t i m ony f r om var i ous w i t nes s es t hatt he tr ai l erhad no r ef l ect i ve t ape in v iol at i on of t he F M C S R s. T he j ury al so heard that ref l ect i ve t ape w as desi gn ed to alert dr i ver s t o t he pr e s e nc e of t ruc ks a he a d o n the r oa dway, a nd tha tthe a bs e nc e of the t ape w oul d r educe vi s i bi l i t y. A ccor di ngl y, t he i s s ue of vi s i bi l i t y, orl ack ther eof , of the tr ai l erw as p re se n te d to th e ju ry fo r c o n sid e ra tio n . T h e tes tim o n y o n v isib ili ty w a s n o t ex p re ss e d in

### Mo ri didno t testify at trial. Dunlap , Max well, an d C orb it didtestify at trial, 7 

### although t

he tri alcourt l im it ed s omeor a llof their t es timony on t he i ss ues of vi sibil it

y and ca usati on, a s previ ously addr es se d. 27 term s o f P reston ’s ac tu a l a b il ity to se e the tru ck o n the n igh t of th e a cc iden t, h o w ev er, w i thoutPr es t on’ s t es t i m ony, w hi ch u nf ortun a t e l y was no tpo s s i bl e i n thi s cas e, any t es t i m ony c o n c e rn in g th is w a s p ro p e rly e x c lu d e d . T h e re fo re , the trial c o u rt d id n o t er r b y re fu sin g th is t es t i m ony pur s uantt o R ul es 401, 403, and 702. ¶57. A s t o caus at i on, t he tr i al courtp roperl y excluded tes t i m on y fr om M or i , D unl ap, M axw el l , and C orbit tp ert ai ning t o caus at i on. T he tr i al courtr eas oned thatther e w as not 7
s uf f i ci entf act s ordat a upon w hi ch t o bas e an opi ni on as t o caus at i on. T hes e w i t nes s es bas i cal l y hel d R & R and H unt ert o a s t r i ct - l i abi l i t y t heory t hatthe truck s houl d neverhave been on the r oad bec aus e i thad no r ef l ect i ve t ape i n vi ol at i on of FM C SR s and, cons equent l y, the r educe d vi s i bi l i t y of t he truck ca us ed Pr es t on’ s death. A s s om e of the w i t nes s es agr eed, they coul d nott es t i f

y w hatPr es t on s aw on the ni ghtof the ac ci dent . S i nce t hey coul d not t es t i f y conce r ni ng Pr es t on’ s vi s i bi l i t y, t hey coul d notst at e w hethert he l ack of re f l ect i ve t ape cause d the ac ci dent . T her ef or e, t he tr i al courtdi d noterrby excl udi ng t hei rpr opos ed th e o ri e s a s to c a u s a tio n . 9. E xpert B ent l ey ¶58. C ar l a nextar gues t hatt he tr i al courterr ed by perm i t t i ng def ens e expe r tw i t nes s J ohn B ent l ey t o t es t i f

y conce r ni ng i s s ues pr evi ous l y l i m i t ed by courtor der . T he t r i al courtor der ed thatB ent l ey’ s opi ni on w oul d be l i m i t ed t o thatof a reasona bly prud ent dri ver appr oachi ng fr o m th e re a r. T h is ru lin g w a s s im ila r t o lim its p la c e d o n C a rl a ’s e x p e rt w itn e s s e s .

### 28

¶5 9. C ar l a as s er t s t hatt he t r i al cour ter r oneous l y per m i t t e d tw o p r e vi ou s l y l i m i t ed st at em ents d u ri n g B en tl ey ’s direc t exa m ination . T h e firststat em ent w as el i ci t ed aft er def ense c o u n se l as k e d B e n tley h is o p in io n o n w h e th e r P re sto n U tz h a d a m p le tim e a n d d ista n c e to avoi d the col l i s i on. T he f ol l ow i ng excha nge occ urr ed: Q . A nd revi ew i ng t he tes t i m on y an d li st ening t o the t est i m on y the se las t f ew days , do you h ave an opi ni on, bas ed on r eas onabl e engi neer i ng cert ai nt y, a s t o w hetherornotPr es t on U t z had a m pl e t i m e and di s t ance to av o id the im p ac t w ith the trac tor-trail er? A . Y es, si r. Q . A nd w hati s t hatopi ni on? A . T h a t th e re w a s s u ffic ien t ti m e a n d d is tan c e a v a ilab le to M r. U tz to comfort abl y s l ow hi s vehi cl e orm ake a l ane c hange t o t he l ef tl ane. C o u n se l fo r C a rla req u e ste d to a p p ro a c h the b e n c h an d the n o b jec ted to th e first s tate m e n t. T he tr i al courtas ked w hy t he obj ect i on w as notm ade bef or e B ent l ey t es t i f

i ed. A f t erf ur ther di s cus s i on, t he tr i al cour toverrul ed the obj ect i on. T he s econd opi ni on el i ci t ed w as as fol l ow s: Q. M r . Be n t l e y , wo u l d a r e a s o n a b l y p ru d e n td r i v e rh a v e h a d a mp l e t i me an d d ist an ce to av o id co ll isi o n w ith this trail er? A . Y es, si r. Q . T el l us w hati s t he bas i s f oryouropi ni on? ¶60. C ouns el f

or C ar l a r eques t ed t o appr oach t he bench w hen B ent l ey w as ques t i oned on the s econd s t at ementand obj ect ed t o t he ques t i on. T he tr i al cour tr econs i der ed the i s s ue and
r emedi ed the f

i r s ts t at ementby s us t ai ni ng the obj ect i on, i n e f f ect , by gi vi ng C ar l a the opt i on o f eith e r in stru c tin g the jur y to d isre g a rd the tes tim o n y o r re b u tti n g the tes tim o n y w ith

### 29

a n o th e r w itn e ss . C a rla c h o se to re b u t th e tes tim o n y w ith tes tim o n y fr o m C o rb itt , h e r e x p e rt. C orbi t tr ebut t ed B ent l ey’ s t es t i m ony by s t at i ng thatPr es t on di d nothave a m pl e t i m e and di s t ance t o avoi d i m pactw i t h t he tr ai l er . A s fort he s econd s t at ement , t he ques t i on and
ans w erconf

or m ed t o t he pr operl i m i t at i on i m pos ed by the tr i al cour t . D efe ns e couns el p h ra se d th e q u e stio n in te rm s o f a “ re a so n a b ly p ru d e n t d riv e r.” T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. 1 0 . E x clu sion o f re fl ec ti v e ta p e d o cu m en ts ¶ 6 1 . C a rla n e x t a rg u e s th a t t h e tr ia l c o u rt e rr e d b y e x c lu d in g a n u m b e r o f d o c u m e n ts c o n c e rn in g ref

lec tiv e tap e . T h e d o c u m e n ts c o n tain e d in fo rm a tio n o n re fle c tiv e tap e a n d its abi l i ty t o pr eventacc i dent s . C ar l a as s ert s t hatthe document s w er e us ed by herexpert s and
as evi dence of

w hatr ef l ect i ve t ape i s , w hy i ti s used on t r ai l er s , and i t s cost . She cl ai m s t hat sh e w a s p re

ju d ice d w h e n th e trial c o u rt d e n ied h e r e x p e rts th e o p p o rtu n ity to u se th is in fo rm a tio n a n d /o r a llo w e v id e n c e to b e p re se n ted to th e ju ry o n th e v isib ili ty iss u e s. C a rla

### Th e exclu deddo cuments were as fo llow s: 8 

### Exhibi t P- 10: 3M Inf orm ation on Conspic uit

y Tape ; Ex hib it P-1 1: J. J. Kelly 2 00 7 T ransp ortatio n C atal og Conspi cuity Tape

Inf orm ation; Exhibi t P-12: Saf

ety Bulle tin 01-03 Decem ber 27, 2001: Retrof

le ctive Tap e onCarg o T ankTrailers; Ex hib it P-1 3: Publi c C it iz en : N H T S AD at e ( si c) S h o wS afety Co st

Little, S aves T ho usan ds; Ex hib it P-1 5: Un derrid e Netw orkVictims F irst; Exhibi t P- 16: Auto Sa fe ty Expe rt .c om: Truc k Conspi cui ty; Exhibi t P-17: News line: NHTSA St udy Conf ir ms Re fl ec tive Ta

pe on Tru cks R edu ces Crash es; Ex hib it P-1 8: Un derrid e Netw orkVictims F irst/Th e Visib le Semi; Exhibi t P- 19: Does your truc k trai le r have r ef le ctiveta pe; and Exhibi t P- 20: Aver y Denni son ve hic leconspic uit y ta pe c at al og. 30 id e n tified th e d o c u m e n ts a s P -9 th ro u g h 2 0 . E x h ib its P -9 a n d P -1 4 w e re a d m itt e d in to 8
e v id e n c e d u ri n g th e tr ia l a n d , th e re fo re , a re n o t a t is s u e b e fo re th is C o u rt . ¶ 6 2 . T h e trial c o u rt e x c lu d e d th e o th e r do c u m e n ts b e c a u se th e y w e re p re p a re d b y p riv a te or gani zat i ons , m os tw er e mar ket i ng devi ces , and they w er e hear s ay. T he tr i al cour tdi d not
errby excl udi ng t he do cum ent s as hear s ay. H ear s ay i s def i ned as “a s t at ement , ot hert han
one m ade by t he decl ar antw hi l e t es t i f yi ng att he tr i al orhear i ng, of f er ed i n evi dence t o pr ove th e tru th o f

t h e ma t t e ra s s e r t e d . ” M i s s . R. E v i d . 8 0 1 . T h e d o c u me n t s , b y Ca r l a ’ s o wn expl anat i on, w oul d be hea r s ay, as t hey w oul d be us ed t o pr ove the truth of t he mat t er a ss e rte d , tha t b e in g w h a t co n stitu tes re fle c tiv e tap e , w h y it i s u se d , it s c o st, a n d its e ffe c ts in
c o n n e c tio n w ith a c c id e n ts . ¶63 . N otw i t hst and i ng t his , C arl a w as no t prej ud i ced by t he exclusi on of t hese do cum ents . T he j ur y had the oppor tuni t y t o vi ew E xhi bi t8 – t he E f f ect i vene s s of

R etr o R ef

l ect i ve Tape
on Heavy T

rai l ers ; E xhi bi t9 – F

M CSA ’s C ons

pi cui t y Requi r em ent

s f orC om m er ci alMot or

### 31

V e h icle , and E xh i bi t14 – R ecog niz i nga T ruck at N

igh tSh ou ldn ’t

B e a Hi tor Miss P r opos i t i on . I n addi t i on, C ar l a had D unl ap, M axw el l , and C orbi t tgi ve t es t i m ony conce r ni ng th e p u rp o s e f

o rr e f l e c t i v e t a p e , t h e F MCS R s c o n c e r n i n g r e f l e c t i v e t a p e , wh e t h e rth e R &R tru ck h ad reflecti v e tap e, an d h o w reflecti v e tap e, or lack th e re o f, c o u ld affec t a pe rson ’s abi l i ty t o s ee a t ruck. T he j ur y a l s o ha d a ctual phot ogr aphs depi ct i ng the R & R t ruck, t aken atthe s cene on t he ni ghtof the acc i dent . A ccor di ngl y, the t r i al cour tdi d noterrby excl udi ng p ro p o s e d d o c u m e n ts P -1 0 th ro u g h 1 3 a n d P -1 5 th ro u g h 2 0 . 11 . E xclusi on of ph otogra p h s ¶64 . C arl a n ext ar gu es t hat the t ri al co urterr ed by ex cl ud i ng the fol l ow i ng ph otographs: ( 1) tw o c ol orphot ogr aphs of exempl art rucks ( P- 34) , and ( 2) t w enty- s i x phot ogr aphs of the t r a i l e ra ti s s ue i n t he c a s e ( P- 36 ) . Car l a o f f e r e d t he s e p ho t og r a ph s a s c ompa r i s ons f ort he ju ry . S h e a rg u e d th a t th e p h o to g ra p h s o f th e e x e m p lar tru c k s w o u ld sh o w th e ju ry w h a t a tr ai l eri n pr opercompl i ance w i t h t he FM C SR s w oul d have l ooked l i ke and w hatPr es t on w oul d have s een, had the tr ai l erbeen i n compl i ance . O n t he otherhand, C ar l a of f er ed the phot ogr aphs of

t he ac tual t r ai l erdr i ven by H unt ert o s how t he j ury how t he tr ai l erappea r ed
o n th e n ig h t o f t h e c o llis io n .

A . E xem pl ar t ruck ¶65. T he t r i al c our tdeni ed the phot ogr aphs of the exe m pl artruck. T he phot ogr aphs of the exempl artruck s how ed the pr operpl ace m entof t he cons pi cui t y t ape. T he t r i al courtdeni ed the f i r s tphot ogr aph, f

i ndi ng t hatt he pi cture c oul d be mi s l eadi ng t o a j ury, beca us e the p ictu re w as tak en i n th e d ay li g h t. T h e ac cide n t, of co u rse, o cc u rred at nig h t. T h e tri al co u rt
r ef us ed the s econd phot ogr aph bec aus e i tdepi ct ed the truck f r om a s i de angl e thatPr es t on

### 32

w oul d nothave s een on the ni ghtof t he acc i dent . I n addi t i on, the tr i al cour tdet erm i ned that it h a d a llo w e d o th e r e x h ib its , s u c h a s P -9 , F M CSA ’s C ons

pi cui t y R equ i r em ent

s f or C om m er ci alMot orV

ehi cl e, w hi ch i l l us t r at ed t he pr operpl ace m entof cons pi cui t y t ape on trucks. ¶66 . T he tr i al cou rtdid not err by r efusi ng t o ad m i tt he p ho t og raphs of the ex em plar t rucks. T he t r i al cour tal l ow ed and Car l a l at eradmi t t ed Exhi bi tP- 9, ent i t l ed F M CS A ’s C o n sp icu ity R equi rem ents f

orC om m er ci alMot orV ehi cl es , i nt o evi dence . T hi s publ i cat i on i ncl uded
ma n y c o l o r e d i l l u s t r a t i o n s o f t r a i l e r s wi t h th e p r o p e rp l a c e me n to f c o n s p i c u i t y t a p e o n t h e m. Fur therm or e, num er ous w i t nes s es t es t i f i ed t o the l ack of

pl ace m entof

t he cons pi cui t i y t ape on R& R’ s t ruc k o n the ni gh tof t he a c c i de nt . The j ury a l s o s a w a tl e a s ts i x p ho t ogr aphs d e p ictin g th e re a r o f th e a c tu a l tru c k d riv e n b y H u n ter o n th e n ig h t o f th e a c c id e n t. T her ef or e, t he tr i al cour tdi d noterrby r ef us i ng t o admi tt he phot ogr aphs of t he exe m pl ar tru ck . T h e jury h ad n u m ero u s il lustrat ion s o f a truck w ith p rop er c o n sp icuity tap e; he ard
w i tnes s t es t i m ony c oncerni ng the corr ectpl ace m entof the t ape and t he l ack of pl ace m entof the t ape by R& R ; and vi ew ed many phot ogr aphs of t he R & R t ruck i m m edi at el y af t ert he col l i s i on. W e f

i nd t hatt he j ur y had ampl e oppor tuni t y t o compar e w hata truck w i t h pr oper cons pi cui ty t ape w oul d l ook l i ke ver s us w hatR & R ’ s t ruck l ooked l i ke on the n i ghtof t he
a c c id e n t. B . H unte r’ s t ruck ¶67. T he t r i al c ourtr ef us ed t o a dm i t t w enty- s i x phot ogr aphs of the tr act or - t r ai l er i nvol ved i n the col l i s i on w i t h P r es t on. H ow ever , the tr i al cour thel d t hati tw oul d r econs i deri t s rul i ng i f the pl ai nt i f

f pr es ent ed evi dence thatdemonstr at ed thatthe tr ai l er w as i n t he s ame or

### 33

su b stan ti all y the s am e c o n d it ion as itw as o n the n igh t of th e a cc iden t, p arti cu larl y in reg ard t o the i s s ue of

t he cons pi cui t y t ape. ¶68. T he evi dence s how ed t hat t he bum per of t he R & R t ruck w as knocked f orw ar d i n t he col l i s i on. T he or i gi nal bum perw as notr eatt ache d t o the tr ai l er . A f t erthe col l i s i on, t he bum perw as pl ace d i n a met al s cr ap pi l e. C ar l a al s o ha d Exhi bi tP- 33 admi t t ed i nt o evi dence . T hi s exhi bitco ntai ned t w o phot ogr aphs . O ne of the phot ogr aphs depi ct ed the bac k of t he tr a ile r a p p ro x im a te ly s ix h o u rs a ft e r t h e a c c id e n t w ith n o b u m p e r. ¶69. T he t es t i m ony al s o r evea l ed t hat t he next m orni ng af t er t he acc i dent , R & R r epl ace d the bumperw i t h anotherbumper . T he t ruck t hen f i ni s hed i t s run t o L oui s i ana a nd r etur ned to th e R & R lo t. ¶70. M os tof

t he tw enty- s i x phot ogr aphs thatC ar l a now compl ai ns t hatthe tr i al cour t err ed by excl udi ng w er e of

t he r earvi ew of

the t r ai l er . Thes e pi ctur es , t aken mor e than a ye araf t er the acc i dent , show ed t he r earof the t r ai l erw i t h a bumper . B as ed on the evi dence , t he tr i al
cour tdi d noter rby excl udi ng t hes e phot ogr aphs . T he t es t i m ony r evea l ed thatthe bumper of the R & R t ruck w as kn ocked of f dur i ng t he ac ci dent . I ndeed, pi ctur es f r om the ni ghtof the ac ci dents how Pr es t on’ s vehi cl e part i al l y undert he t ruck w i t h no vi s i bl e bumper . T he
or i gi nal bum perw as r epl ace d w i t h anotherbum per , and the or i gi nal bum perw as di s car ded af t erthe ac ci dent . C ar l a el i ci t ed t es t i m ony thatthe bumperw as kn ocked of f and r epl ace d by a di f f er entbum per . She al s o had Exhi bi tP- 33 admi t t ed i nt o evi den ce, w hi ch depi ct ed the r earof

the t ruck hour s af

t ert he col l i s i on, w i t h no bum per . T hi s w as cons i s t entw i th t he
e v id e n c e th a t n o b u m p e r w a s a tta c h e d to th e tru c k a ft e r t h e c o llis io n .

### 34

¶7 1. Si m i l art o t he di s cus s i on on t he exe m pl artruc k ph ot og r a ph s , t he j ur y had t he oppor tuni ty t o compar e w hata truck w i t h pr opercons pi cui t y tape w ou l d l ook l i ke ver s us w hatt he R& R t ruc k l oo ke d l i ke on the ni gh tof the a c c i de nt . The tw e nty- s i x p ho t og r a phs of the tr ai l er , t aken m ore t han a yearl at er , w oul d nothave be en hel pf ul t o t he j ury as t hey di d notdepi ctt he truck i n t he s ame condi t i on as i tw as att he t i m e o f t he col l i s i on. T he p h o tog rap h s o ffered b y C arla sh o w ed the trail er in the d ay li g h t w ith an att ac h ed b u m p er, w her eas the col l i s i on occurr ed atni ghtand t he bum perw as knocked of f t he t r ai l erdue t o the
c o llis io n . T h e tr ia l c o u rt d id n o t e rr b y e x c lu d in g th e s e p h o to g ra p h s . 12. E xcl usi on of

expert t est i m on y f

rom T i m C orbi t t on t he i s s ues of yi el di ng ri ght - of

- w ay and i m m edi at e haz ard ¶ 7 2 . C a rla n e x t a rg u e s th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d b y fin d in g a s a m a tter o f law th a t (1 ) fo rty to fo rty -fiv e m iles p e r h o u r is n o t an u n re a so n a b ly slo w sp e e d , an d (2 ) tw o -a n d -o n e -h a lf
m il es is insu ffi cien t t o cre ate a n im m ed iate h az ard . T h is argu m en t i s ti ed to C arla’s
a rg u m e n ts o n th e c o rr e s p o n d in g p ro p o s e d ju ry in s tru c tio n s P -1 7 a n d P -1 8 , re s p e c tiv e ly . ¶7 3 . T h e tr ial co u rt d eterm ined that the sl o w sp ee d an d the tw o -an d -on e-h alf m il es e n try on t he hi ghw ay by R & R b ef or e the col l i s i on di d notcr eat e an i m m edi at e haz ar d. T he evi dence att r i al s how ed thatH unt ers t at ed thathe w as goi ng aboutf or t y t o f or t y- f i ve mi l es perhourw hen the ac ci dentoccurr ed. T r ooperShi ve s t at ed thatH unt erhad t ol d hi m att he
s cene of the ac ci dentthathe ha d be en t r avel i ng a boutf or t y m i l es perhour . T he pos t ed s peed l i m i tw as s i xt y- f

i ve mi l es perhour . H i gh w ay 61 had no mi ni m um pos t ed s peed. A d d iti o n a lly , H ig h w a y 6 1 w a s n o t a lim ited -a c c e s s r o a d . T h is m e a n t th a t v e h icle s c o u ld

### 35

ent erH i ghw ay 61 atcount l es s poi nt s al ong the r oadw ay, and thata dr i veron H i gh w ay 61
w o u ld h a v e to b e a le rt fo r o th e r v e h ic le s e n te ri n g th e h ig h w a y a t v a ri o u s p o in ts . ¶74 . T he ac ci den toccu rr ed close t o m i dn i gh t , and no t est i m on y w as sol i ci t ed thatthere w as any “f l ow ” of t r af f i c othert han R & R ’ s truck and Pr es t on’ s vehi cl e on the f l ats t r et ch of

r oad
w her e the ac ci dentoccurr ed. Fur t her , the t es t i m ony r evea l ed thatthe r i ght
- hand l ane w as c o n s i d e r e d t h e s l o w l a n e . Hu n t e rh a d l e f tt h e R&R l o ta n d h a d t r a v e l e d a p p r o x i ma t e l y two a n d o n e -h a lf m iles so u th o f th e fa c ili ty b e fo re th e c o lli sio n . W h e n H u n ter le ft th e R & R lo t, he i m m edi at el y pul l ed i nt o t he r i ght
- hand l ane, al t hough he conce ded t hatt he t ruck may have “t i pped” i nt o t he l ef

t - hand l ane a s he w as ent er i ng t he hi ghw ay. H ow ever , H unt er

“ im m e d iate ly ” p u lled th e tru c k in to th e rig h t-h a n d lan e . T h e R & R tru c k tra v e led in th e rig h th a n d la n e , a n d th e a c c id e n t o c c u rr e d in th e ri g h t- h a n d la n e . ¶75. C orbi t t opi ned t hat f or t y t o f or t y- f i ve m i l es per hour w as t oo s l ow a s peed, i m pedi ng the f l ow of tr af f i c and cr eat i ng an unus ual oremer gency s i tuat i on. H ow ever , bas ed on the des cr i bed t es t i m ony att r i al , t he tr i al cour tdi d noterrby r ef us i ng C ar l a’ s i ns t ruct i on, P- 17,
as ther e w as no evi dence thatH unt erdr ove the R & R t ruck ata spee d or i n a mannert hat
cons t i tut ed a ha zar d t o t he f l ow of t r af f i c. ¶76. T he t r i al cour t di d not err by f i ndi ng t hat t her e w as i ns uf f i ci ent evi dence t hat t w o and
one- hal f mi l es w as i ns uf

f i ci entt o c r eat e an i m m edi at e haz ar d and, thus , r ef us i ng pr opos ed ju ry ins tru c tio n P -1 8 . Ju ry ins tru c tio n P -1 8 sta ted , in p a rt, th a t “th e o p e ra to r o f a v e h icle ab o u t t o en ter or cro ss a s tr ee t f rom a ro ad o r drive w ay is u n d er a d u ty to y iel d the ri g h t- o fw a y to a ll v e h ic le s a p p ro a c h in g o n th e s tr e e t s o c lo s e a s to c o n s titu te a n im m e d ia te h a z a rd .” T he i ns truct i on furt herst at ed t hati f the j ury f

ound, by a pr eponder ance of the evi dence , t hat

### 36

H unt erw as aboutt o ent er orcr os s H i ghw ay 61 atthe t i m e w hen Pr es t on w as appr oachi ng o n th e ro a d s o c lo se a s to c o n stitu te a n im m e d iate h a z a rd , an d H u n ter fa iled to y ield th e rig h tof
- w ay, and the f

ai l ur e t o yi el d w as t he sol e pr oxi m at e ca us e ort he pr oxi m at e contr i but i ng c a u s e o f P re s to n ’s in

ju ri e s , th e n , th e v e rd ic t s h o u ld b e fo r t h e p la in tif f. ¶77. T he evi dence, as al ready dis cus s ed, s how ed thatH unt erent er ed the hi ghw ay and tr avel ed a di s t ance of tw o and one- hal f m i l es pri ort o t he col l i s i on. T her e w as no evi dence th a t H u n te r p u lle d in fr o n t o f P re s to n o n th e h ig h w a y . I I . Jur y I ns t r uc t i ons ¶ 7 8 . T h e g e n e ra l ru le w ith reg a rd to ju ry in stru c tio n s is th a t th e trial c o u rt h a s c o n sid e ra b le d is c re tio n w h e n in s tru c tin g th e ju ry , a n d th e in s tru c tio n s a re to b e re a d a s a w h o le . B i ckham
v. Gr a nt , 8 61 S o. 2 d 299, 301 ( M i s s . 2003) . A l i t i ganti s ent i t l ed t o have j ury i ns t ruct i ons th a t p re s e n t h is th e o ry o f t h e c a s e . Y o u n gv. G u ild , 7 S o . 3 d 2 5 1 , 2 5 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 9 ). H ow ever , a tr i al j udge may r ef us e a pr opos ed j ury i ns t ruct i on thati s a n i ncorr ects t at ement of the l aw , r epea t s a t heory cover ed i n ot heri ns t ruct i ons , orhas no pr operf oundat i on i n t he
e v id e n c e b e fo re th e c o u rt . Ca to , 15 So. 3d at423. O n appea l , t he appe l l at e court s anal yze w hether a j ur y i ns t ruct i on corr ect l y s t at ed the l aw and w as s uppor t ed by the evi dence . Y oung , 7 So. 3d at259 ( ci t i ng B eve r l y E nters . v. R eed , 9 6 1 S o . 2 d 4 0 , 4 3 -44 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 )). N onethel es s , “[ i ] f

ot heri ns t ruct i ons gr ant ed ade quat el y i nst ructt he j ury, a part y m ay not compl ai n of a ref

us ed i ns t ruct i on on appea l . ” Id . ( quot i ng Southland E nters . v. N ew ton Co u n ty , 838 So. 2d 286, 289 (M i s s . 2003) ) . W hen ana l yzi ng j ury i ns t ruct i ons as a w hol e, “‘[ d] efect s i n speci fi c i nst ruct i on s w i l l not m and at e r eversal w hen al l of t h e inst ruct i on s,

### 37

t aken a s a w hol e f

ai r l y–al t hough notper f ect l y–announce the appl i cabl e pr i m ary rul es of l aw . ’ ” Id . ( quot i ng B everl y E n ters. , 9 6 1 S o . 2 d a t 4 3 )) . 1 . J u ry In stru ction P -7 ¶ 7 9 . C a rl a a rg u e s th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d b y d e n y in g ju ry in stru c tio n P -7 o n p ro x im a te ca u se. Instea d , the tri al co u rt g a v e jury instruction C -10 o n p rox im ate c au se. Jury i ns truct i on C
- 10 s t at ed:

A cause co nst i tutes a proxim at e cause o f an i njury w hen such in jury resu lt s from a c h ain o f a n atura l and u n b rok en seq u en ce from the d efe n d an t’ s negl i gentact. A def

endanti s notl i abl e f

ordamages w hi ch ar e r emot e or co ll ateral, o r w h ich re su ltfrom a re m o te, im p rob ab le, o r ex tr ao rdin ary occurr ence , al t hough s uch occ urr ence i s w i t hi n t he r ange of pos s i bi l i t i es flo w in g fro m th e d e fe n d a n ts’ n e g lig e n t ac t. I f you f i nd f r om a pr eponder ance of the evi dence thatthe death of Pr es t on J i m m y U t z r es ul t ed fr om a cha i n of natur al and unbr oken s equenc e ( s i c) fr om the de f

endant s ’ f

ai l ur e t o compl y w i t h t he Feder al M ot orC arr i er S a fety R eg u lat ion s, th en yo u r verd ictsha ll be for th e p lai n ti ff. H o w ev er, if you f i nd the death of

Pr es t on J i m m y U t z w as t he r es ul tof a r emot e, i m pr obabl e, orextr aor di nary occurr ence , al t hough w i t hi n t he r ange of pos s i bi l i t i es f

l ow i ng f r om t he def

endant s ’ negl i gence , yourve r di cts hal l be f or the d efendan t s. T h e re co rd re v ea ls th at, w h en o p p o sing co u n sel an d the tri al co u rtw e re d iscu ssing jury in stru c tio n s, th e trial c o u rt d id n o t li k e e ith e r o f th e p a rtie s ’ ju ry in stru c tio n s o n p ro x im a te ca u se a n d su g g ested it s o w n jury instruction . A ft er discu ssion fr o m all pa rt ies, th e tr ial co u rt app roved jury i nst ruction C -10. W hen asked for com m ent by t he tr i al cou rt , the respon se by couns el f

orC ar l a w as “I ’ m ok ay w i t h t hati ns t ruct i on. ” I n otherw or ds , C ar l a had no
o b je c tio n to th e tr ia l c o u rt g iv in g th e p ro x im a te -c a u s e ju ry in s tru c tio n C -1 0 . ¶ 8 0 . O n a p p e a l, C a rla n o w c laim s th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d b y g iv in g th is in stru c tio n , a s it
w a s a m iss tate m e n t of

law a n d in c o m p lete . T h is C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t w h e re c o u n se l fa ils toM iss iss ip p i P ra c tice M o d e l Ju ry In stru c tio n s C iv il S e c tio n 1 5 :2 sta tes : 9 

### You ar e instruc te d that t

he de fe ndant

is not l ia blefor al l injuries that f

low from __________ [his neg ligen ce, if an y or h is w ro ng

fu l a ct, if an

y or h is ch a rgea ble co nd

uct a t issue in this su it] , b ut o nly f or tho s e that

c ou l d have bee n re as onably forese en and antic ipate d. Theinj uri es suf fe re d by plaintif

f mus t res ult

from a cha in of a naturaland unbroken s eque ncefrom de fe ndant ’s

__ __ ______ [ c h a r ge a b le, wro ng

f u l o r n e gli ge n t ] a c t . Ho we ver , the de fe ndant is not l ia blefor dam age s whi ch arere mot e or col late ra l, or whic h re sult f rom a r em ote , i mprobabl e or extra ordinar y occur re nce , although s uch oc cur re nce is within t

he rangeof pos sibil itie s fl owing f rom def endant’ s __________ [ c h a r ge a b le, w ro ng

f u l o r n e gli ge n t ] act. Miss. P rac. Mo del jury In str. Civ il § 1 5:2 . (Emp hasis inorig inal.) 38 ra is e a n o b

je c tio n to a ju ry in s tru c tio n , th e is s u e is p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d . J o rda n v. S ta te , 995 So. 2d 94, 114 ( M i s s . 2008) ( ci t i ng R u b e n ste in v. S ta te , 9 4 1 S o . 2 d 7 3 5 , 7 7 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 )). C a rla d id n o t o b

jec t to ju ry in stru c tio n C -1 0 b e in g a m iss tate m e n t o f la w o r in c o m p lete d u ri n g th e d is c u s s io n o f i n s tru c tio n s . ¶81. N otw i t hs t andi ng thi s ba r , Car l a cont ends thatthe l anguage thatthe dea t h of Pr es t on w as a r es ul tof

“a r emot e, i m pr obabl e, orextr aor di nary occurr ence , al t hough w i t hi n the r ange of pos s i bi l i t i es ”i s an i ncorr ects t at ementof l aw . She mai nt ai ns thatt he pr opers t at ementof l aw i s thatt he s t andar d of c ar e appl i cabl e w hen a par t y char ged w i t h negl i gence i s w hether the per s on act ed as a r eas on able and prudentper s on w oul d have unde rthe s ame ors i m i l ar ci r cumst ance s . I n D il

lon v. G r eenbr iarD i

gging Serv i ce, L td. , 919 So . 2d 17 2, 17 8 (M i ss. C t . A pp. 2005) , the C our tof A ppeal s uphe l d s i m i l arl anguage i n a j ury i ns t ruct i on. L i ke the i ns truct i on i n D il

lon , j ur y i ns t ruct i on C-10 w as s i m i l art o l anguage cont ai ned i n one of t he M iss iss ip p i M o d e l Ju ry In stru c tio n s. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls u p h e ld a ju ry in stru c tio n in 9 D il lon th a t h a d lan g u a g e sim ilar to th e M iss iss ip p i P ra c tice M o d e l Ju ry In stru c tio n C iv il

### 39

Sect i on 15: 2, w hi ch s t at es , i n part , t hatt her e i s no l i abi l i t y t o a def endant“f ordamages w hi ch
are rem o te or c o ll ateral, o r w h ich re su ltfro m a re m o te, im p rob ab le, o r ex tr ao rdin ary o c c u rr e n c e , a l t h o u g h s u c h o c c u r r e n c e i s wi t h i n th e r a n g e o f p o s s i b i l i t i e s ” th a tf

l o w f r o m a def endant ' s ne gl i genta ct . Fur t herm or e, a j ury i ns t ruct i on pr ovi di ng the s t andar d of car e f or negl i gence cas e w as gi ven by the tr i al cour t . J ury i ns t ruct i on C
- 4 pr ovi ded: N egl i gence i s t he f

ai l ur e t o us e r eas onabl e car e. Reas onabl e ca r e i s t hatdegr ee of car e w hi ch a r eas onabl y car ef ul per s on w oul d us e underl i ke ors i m i l ar c irc u m sta n c e s. N e g lig e n c e m a y c o n sis t eith e r in d o in g so m e th in g th a t a reas on ably caref

u l pe rs on w ou l d n ot do un der l i ke o r s i m i l ar ci rcum st ances, ori n f ai l i ng t o do s om ethi ng thata re as onabl y car ef ul per s on w oul d do under l i ke o r s i m i l ar ci rcum st ances. A party cannotcompl ai n abouta r ef us ed i ns t ruct i on w her e the i ns t ruc t i on, as gi ven, a d e q u a te ly in s tru c ts th e ju ry . Y oung , 7 So. 3d at259. T hi s C our tanal yzes j ury i ns t ruct i ons a s a w h o le . Id . “I n cons i der i ng w hethert he gr antorr ef us al of an i ns t ruct i on cons t i tut es r ever s i bl e er ror , w e r ead the i ns t ruct i ons actual l y gi ven as a w hol e and w i l l notr ever s e a ver di cts o l ong as t he i ns t ruct i ons , t aken t ogether , fai r l y announce t he l aw of t he ca s e and
cr eat e no i nj us t i ce. ” Mar inerHeal th Car e, I

nc. v. E s tate of

E dw ar ds ex r el

. Turner , 964 So. 2d 1138, 1154 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng W hitten v. Cox , 799 So. 2d 1, 16 ( M i s s . 2000) ) . T he tr i al co urtdi d noterrby r ef us i ng j ur y i ns t ruct i on P- 7 orby gi vi ng j ury i ns t ruct i on C
- 10. W hen the j ur y i ns t ruct i ons w er e r ead as a w hol e, they f ai r l y i nf or m ed t he j ury of

the l aw and
c re a te d n o in

ju s tic e to C a rl a . 2. Jury I nst ruct i ons P - 10, P- 11, P- 12, P- 13, P- 14, P- 15, and P - 16 and C - 13 ¶8 2. Car l a c on t e nd s t ha t t he t r i a l c ou r t e r r e d by de ny i ng j ury i ns t ruc t i on s P- 10 t hr ou gh P16 r el at i ng t o R & R ’ s and H unt er ’ s a l l eged vi ol at i on of numer ous FM C SR s . She ar gues t hat

### 40

the tr i al cour t ’ s deni al of j ur y i ns t ruct i ons P- 10 t hr ough P- 16 w as err oneous beca us e the evidence sup po rt ed the i nst ruct i on s, and t he F M C S R viol at i on s show ed the proxim at e cause of Pr es t on’ s death. M or e s peci f i cal l y, the t r i al c our tde ni ed j ury i ns t ruct i ons P- 10 ( gener al fa ilu re to c o m p ly w ith th e F M C S R s); P -1 1 (fa ilu re to h a v e re fle c tiv e tap e ); P -1 2 (fa ilu re to conducta pr e- t r i p i ns pect i on) ; P- 13 ( f ai l ur e t o conducta pos t - t r i p i ns pect i on) ; P- 14 (o p e ra tin g th e tra iler in su c h a c o n d iti o n a s to lik e ly c a u se a n a c c id e n t); P -1 5 (fa ilu re to i nspect an d repa i ra tr ai l erw hi l e i n def endant s ’ contr ol ) ; and P- 16 ( f ai l ur e t o oper at e the tr ail er w ith re fl ec ti v e tap e). H av ing reso lved to g ive ju ry in stru cti o n C -13 , the tri al co u rt
r e f us e d Car l a ’ s j ury i ns t ruc t i on s P- 10 thr ou gh P- 16 a nd , i n the de ni a l of po s t - t r i a l mot i on, char act er i zed thes e i ns t ruct i ons as “s uper f l uous . ” ¶83. A s t o j ur y i ns t ruct i on C -13, w hich w as given t o t he j ury, C ar l a ar gues t hat C
- 13 deni ed hert he r i ghtt o pre s entm ul t i pl e and se par at e FM C SR vi ol at i ons by R & R and H unt er t o t he j ury. A ddi t i onal l y, C ar l a cont ends that , w hi l e C
- 13 i ns t ruct s the j ury t hatR & R ’ s and H unt er ’ s f

ai l ur e t o compl y w i t h t he FM C SR s i s negl i gent , ther eby s eemi ngl y bei ng a n e g lig e n c e -p e r-s e in stru c tio n , itth e n re q u ire s h e r to sh o w th a t th is n e g lig e n c e p ro x im a tely
caus ed Pr es t on’ s death. C oupl ed w i t h t hes e ar gum ent s i s C ar l a’ s f ur t hercont ent i on t hatt he trial c o u rt err e d b e c a u se itp ro h ib ited h e r fro m a d m itt in g e v id e n c e o f F M C S R v io latio n s v ia
ex p ert test i m on y o n tai l l i gh tvis i bil i t y, the tr ai l er bei ng “ou tof service, ” and fai l ure t o u se re fl e c tiv e ta p e , a s d is c u s s e d in p re v io u s is s u e s . ¶84. T he tr i al courtal l ow ed j ur y i ns t ruct i on C
- 13, w hi ch pr ovi ded:

T he courti ns t ruct s t he j ury thatt he def endant s, R un ni ng & R ol l i ng T ru c k in g , In c ., an d A n th o n y Q . H u n ter w e re n e g lig e n t i n failin g to c o m p ly w i th the r equ i rem ents of the F ed eral M otorC arr i er Safety R egu l at i on s.

### 41

H ow ever, t he factt hat this courthas di rect ed a f i nd i ng of negl i gen ce aga i nst thes e d efe n d an ts do es n o t, in an d o f i tsel f, m ea n that thes e d efe n d an ts are liab le f o r th e d e a th o f th e d e c e a se d . B e fo re y o u m a y fin d th e se d e fe n d a n ts l i abl e f ort he dea t h of

Pr es t on J i m m y U t z, you m us tals o f i nd thats uch negl i gence , t he f

ai l ur e of t he def endant s t o compl y w i t h t he Federal M ot or C a rrie r S a fe ty R e g u latio n s, w a s a p ro x im a te c a u se a n d /o r p ro x im a te contr i but i ng caus e t o t he dea t h of Pr es t on J i m m i e U t z. ¶85. I n T

h o m a s v . McD o n a ld , 667 So. 2d 594, 596- 597 ( M i s s . 1995) , thi s C our ts t at ed: [ W ] here there i s a st atute, t he st atute w i l l be t he co ntr oll i ng l aw forthe p art i es' a c tio n o r f

a ilu re to a c t. See H

averv. H

inson , 38 5 S o. 2d 60 5, 60 8 (M i ss. 1 9 8 0 ) (s tatu tes d e lin e a te n e g lig e n t co n d u c t). V io latio n s o f sta tu tes g e n e ra lly c o n s titu te n e g lig e n c e p e r s e . T rav is v. H

art ford , 630 So. 2d 337, 342 (M iss .1 9 9 3 ); U

-Ha u l Co . v. W

h ite , 2 3 2 S o . 2 d 7 0 5 , 7 0 8 (M iss. 1 9 7 0 ). ¶86. T he C our tf

ur t hers t at ed: T he p ri ncipl e t hat vi olat i on of a st atute const i tutes neg l i gen ce per se i s so e lem e n tar y th a t itd o e s n o t re q u ire c itatio n o f a u th o ri ty . W h e n a sta tu te is vi ol at ed, t he i nj ur ed part y i s e nt i t l ed t o a n i ns t ruct i on thatthe part y vi ol at i ng i s gui l t y o f

ne gl i ge nc e , a nd i f

t ha tne gl i ge nc e pr ox i mat e l y c a us e d or co n tr ibu ted to the in

jury , then the in

jured p arty is en ti tl ed to rec o v er. T hom as , 667 So. 2d at596- 597 ( quot i ng B ryan t v. A l ph a E n tertainm en t

Corp . , 508 So. 2d 1 0 9 4 , 1 0 9 6 (M is s .1 9 8 7 )) . ¶87. W hi l e T

hom as p ro v id e s th a t v io latio n s o f s tatu tes c o n stitu te n e g lig e n c e p e r s e , this does notr el i eve a par t y f r om t he b urden of

s how i ng thatt he negl i gence of t he oppos i ng p a rt y p ro x im a te ly c a u s e d o r c o n tr ib u te d to th e in ju ry s u ff e re d b y a c o m p la in a n t. T hom as , 6 6 7 S o . 2 d a t 5 9 6 -9 7 . T hom as s t at es t hatw hen a s t atut e i s vi ol at ed, a pa r t y i s ent i t l ed t o an i ns truct i on on negl i gence . H ow ever , i n or dert o r ecove rda m ages f ora n i nj ury, that negl i gence ( vi ol at i on of a s t atut e) m us thave pr oxi m at el y caus ed orcontr i but ed t o the i nj ur y. Id . I n otherw or ds , a vi ol at i on o f a s t atut e, i n and of i t s el f , does notdi ct at e thatei t her( 1) the vi ol at i on w as t he pr oxi m at e orcont r i but i ng caus e of an i nj ury s uf

f er ed by a pa r t y, or( 2)

### 42

recovery fordam ages i s i m m i nen t . G rant ed, the F M C S R s a re regulat i on s, no tst atutes , n ev erthe less, th e log ic h o lds true for th e ins tru cti o n s at i ssu e b efo re this C o u rt . F u rth er, j u ry i ns t ruct i on C- 13 p r ov i de d t ha tR& R an d Hunt e rwer e n e gl i ge ntf orf a i l ur e t o f

ol l ow t he FM C SR s . C ar l a’ s cont ent i on t hatt he i ns t ruct i on r equi r ed hert o pr ove thatR & R ’ s and H un t er’ s negli gen ce prox i m at el y cau sed or con t ri bu t ed t o the i nj ury i s w i t ho ut m eri t , becau se th is r e q u ir e m e n t is s u p p o rt e d b y M is s is s ip p i la w . T hom as , 66 7 So . 2d a t596- 97. A c c o rd in g ly , th e tr ia l c o u rt p ro p e rl y re fu s e d C a rl a ’s in s tru c tio n s . 3. Jur y I ns t r uc t i on P- 17 ( ope r at i ng a t a s l ow s pe e d) ¶8 8. C ar l a nextcont ends t hatt he t r i al co urte r r e d b y d e ny i ng j ury i ns t ruc t i on P- 17
c o n ce rnin g ne g li g en ce of a drive r op era ti n g a ve h icl e at a spe ed an d m an n er w h ich w o u ld
cons t i tut e a ha zar d t o t he f l ow of tr af

f i c ort o ot hervehi cl es t r avel i ng i n t he s ame r oadw ay. T he tr i al courtdet erm i ned thatt he evi dence w as i ns uf f i ci entt o supportt he i ns t ruct i on. W hen di s cus s ed f

ur t her , t he tr i al courtals o f ound t hatthe tr act or - t r ai l er ’ s s peed w as not
u n r e a s o n a b l y s l o w a s a ma t t e ro f l a w. ¶89. H unt er , t he tr act or - t r ai l erdr i ver , t es t i f i ed thathe w as t r avel i ng betw een f or t y t o f or tyfiv e m iles p e r h o u r in th e rig h t-h a n d lan e a t th e tim e o f th e c o lli sio n . T h e p o ste d sp e e d lim it atthe s i t e of

t he col l i s i on w as s i xt y- f i ve mi l es per hou r. T r ooperShi ve t es t i f i ed that H i ghw ay 61 ha d no m i ni m um s peed l i m i t , a nd ve hi cl es r egul ar l y tr avel ed atf or t y t o f or tyf i ve mi l es perhour . H e al s o st at ed t hatt he r i ghtl ane i s forsl ow ert r af f i c. T r ooperS hi ve w as cal l ed t o the s cene of

t he ac ci dentat11: 50 p. m . , and he arri ved short l y t her eaf t erat11: 59 p. m . N o evi dence s ugges t ed thatany othervehi cl es w er e tr avel i ng on t hats t r et ch of H ig h w a y 6 1 .

### 43

¶90. Carla ci te d Wheat v. Teche , 179 So . 5 53 (M iss. 1 93 8), for the holding t hat the op erationof a mo to r v eh ic le at less th an th e fixedrate of sp eed maybe n eglig ent an d is a qu estionfor th e jury . Id . at 555. The tri alcour t c onsi der ed Wheat

during di sc uss ions on jur y ins tr uctions and found thef

ac ts di stingui sha

blef rom Carl a’ s c as e. We a gre e. In Wheat, this Co urt reversedand reman deda trial court’s gr antof di r ect ed ver di cti n fa vorof Teche L in e s . Id . W heatw as s t andi ng by t he s i de of the r oadw ay i n f

r ontof hi s truck w hen a Teche L i nes bus pas s ed w i t hi n one f ootof W heat , caus i ng par t i cl es f r om rocks and s l ag t o s tr i ke W h e a t a n d in

ju re h is e y e . Id . at554. T he r oadw ay atthatpa r t i cul arpoi ntha d a gr avel
- l i ke
s ur f ace , w as r ed- f

l agged, and had thi r t y- s i x fe etof c l ears pace , yetthe Teche Li ne bus dr ove w ith in o n e fo o t o f W h e a t a t n o m o re th a n f if ty m il e s p e r h o u r. Id . T he C our tf ound t hat undert hos e f

act s , t he j ur y s houl d det erm i ne w hetherthe bus dr i verw as tr avel i ng on t he
ro a d w a y a t a r e a so n a b le r a te o f s p e e d , e x e rc ise d re a so n a b le c a re , a n d c o u ld h a v e re a so n a b ly fo re s e e n th e p o s s ib ility o f i n ju ry . Id . at554- 55. ¶ 9 1 . Th e f

a c t s i n Ca r l a ’ s c a s e a r e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m Tec he . T h e st atutes at issue w ere di f f er enti n t he tw o cas es , and no evi dence w as pr es ent ed t o s how a hazar d t o the f l ow of tr af f i c. T hi s i s t rue bec aus e H unt erdr ove no more than f ort y-f i ve mi l es perhour , tr avel ed in th e rig h t-h a n d lan e o f tw o so u th b o u n d lan e s, a n d th e a c c id e n t o c c u rre d tw o a n d o n e -h a lf
m il es fro m H u n ter’s po in t of en try o n to H igh w ay 6 1 . T h is C o u rth as h eld th at a tri al co u rt
m a y re fu s e a ju ry in s tru c tio n th a t is n o t su p p o rt e d b y th e e v id e n c e . Ca to , 15 So. 3d at423. T he tr i al courtdi d noterr , beca us e t he evi dence w as i ns uf f i ci entt o s uppor tt he i ns t ruct i on. 4. Jury I nst ruct i ons P- 18 and P - 19 ( yi el di ng)

### In s upport of he r propose d jur

y ins tr uction, Carla

ci te d Mis si ss ippiCode Se ction 10 

### 63 -3-8 01 wh ich states: (1) Ex cept as may otherw ise be prov idedin this article, the driver o f a veh icle approac hing an int er se ction s hal l yi el d theright -of -way t o a ve hic lewhic h has ent er ed the inte rs ec ti on from a dif fe re nt hi ghway. (2) Except a s m ay other

wis e b e p rovide d in t

his arti cl e, when two vehi cl es ent er an inte rs ec ti on from di ff

er ent highways at thesam e ti methe dri ver of the veh icle onthe left sh all yieldthe rig ht-o f-wayto th e veh icle onthe rig ht. Mis s. Code Ann. § 63-3- 801 (Re v. 2004) .

44 ¶92. C ar l a nextar gued t hatt he t r i al cour ter r ed by re f us i ng j ury i ns t ruct i ons P - 18 and P- 19,
as t hey es t abl i s hed some of hert heor i es of l i abi l i t y. B oth i ns t ruct i ons conce r ned yi el di ng t he
r i ght
- of
- w ay. J ur y i ns t ruct i on P- 18 s t at ed i n pa r tthata n “ oper at orof a vehi cl e aboutt o ent er o r c ro ss a stre e t fro m a ro a d o r d riv e w a y is u n d e r a d u ty to y ie ld th e r ig h t-o f-w a y to a ll
v eh icl es a p p roa ch ing o n the s tr ee t so c lose as to co n sti tute an im m ed iat e h az ard . ” Ju ry in stru c tio n P -19 stat ed in p art th at “a d ri v er m u st yield the ri g h t of w ay to an o ther v eh icle th a t h a s a lre a d y e sta b lish e d c o n tro l o f th e d riv in g lan e .” T h e trial c o u rt re fu se d b o th 10 i ns truct i ons beca us e of

i ns uf f i ci entevi dence . ¶9 3 . T h e rec o rd rev ea led that H u n ter ca m e to w o rk at ap p rox im ately 1 0 :30 . W h en h e left the R & R l otl ocat ed i n M er i gol d, M i s s i s s i ppi , i n t he tr act or - t r ai l er , he drove s out h on H i ghw ay 61. W hen H unt erent er ed the hi ghw ay, he pr obabl y “t i pped” the l ef t - hand l ane, h o w e v e r h e im m e d iate ly g o t in to th e rig h t-h a n d lan e . T h e a c c id e n t o c c u rre d a p p ro x im a tely tw o o r tw o an d o ne-hal f m i l es af t erH u n te r e n te re d H ig h w a y 6 1 .

### Mississip pi C od e Sectio n 6 3-3 -70 1 states: 11 

### No perso n sh all start a veh icle wh ich is sto pp ed, s tan d in g , o r park ed unless and untilsuc h move me nt c an bema de wi th rea sona blesa fe ty. Mis s. Code Ann. § 63-3- 701 (Re v. 2004) . 45 ¶ 9 4 . W ith re g a rd to P -1 8 , 

### Carla re li es on Reese v. Sum mers , 792 So. 2d 992 (Mi ss . 2001) ( c i t i ng Thomas , 667 So. 2d at 596 ) t o s uppor therpos i t i on thatw hethera part i cul ar ci r cumst ance r i s es t o the l evel of a n e m er gency orunus ual s i tuat i on i s a ques t i on f ort he j ur y. H ow ever , t he tr i al courtdi d noterrby r ef us i ng t hes e i ns t ruct i ons . T he record co nt ai ns no evi dence t o s how t hatH unt erorPr es t on w er e i n cl os e pr oxim i t y t o each otheratan in te rs e c tio n w h e n H u n ter e n ter e d H ig h w a y 6 1 . T h e a c c id e n t o c c u rre d tw o a n d o n e -h a lf
m i l es af t erH unt erhad ent er ed the hi ghw ay f r om t he R & R l otand had be en tr avel i ng i n t he
r i ghthand l ane. T hi s C our thas hel d thata tr i al cour thas cons i der abl e di s cr et i on w hen in s tru c tin g th e ju ry . B i ckham , 861 So. 2d at301. A j ury i ns t ruc t i on m ay be r ef us ed by a tr ia l c o u rt w h e n it is u n s u p p o r te d b y t h e e v id e n c e . Ca to , 15 So. 3d at423. B as ed on the evidenc e pr ovi ded, thi s Courtc annots ay t hatthe t r i al c our te r r ed by r ef us i ng t hese i nst ruct i on s. 5. Jury I nst ruct i on P - 20 ¶9 5. Car l a c on t e nd s tha tthe tr i a l c ou r te r r e d by r e f us i ng j ur y i ns t r uct i on P- 20, w hi ch
c on c e rne d M i s s i s s i pp i Code Se c t i on 63
- 3- 70 1. The s t a tut e go ve r ns s t a r t i ng a s t op pe d, 11
s t andi ng, orparked vehi cl e w hen m ovementcoul d notbe made w i t h r eas onabl e s af ety. T he tr ia l c o u rt re fu s e d th e in s tru c tio n b e c a u s e it f o u n d n o e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt it.

### 46

¶96. C ar l a ar gued thatR & R and H unt erw er e vi ol at i ng the FM C SR s , thus t he t r act or - tr ai l er coul d notbe oper at ed orm oved s af el y. T he r ecor d r evea l s t hatH unt erent er ed H i ghw ay 61 i n a s outhbound di r ect i on. Som e tw o t o tw o a nd one
- hal f mi l es l at er , t he col l i s i on occurr ed betw een the tr act or - t r ai l erdr i ven by H unt erand the vehi cl e dr i ven by Pr es t on. T her e w as no evi dence thatH unt erhad s t opped orparked the tr act or - t r ai l eraf t erhe had ent er ed H i ghw ay 61. T he j ury w as i ns t ruct ed, vi a j ur y i ns t ruct i on C
- 13, t hatR & R and H unt erw er e negl i gent b y v iolati n g the F M C S R s. Ind ee d , the jury , in sp ec ial interrog atory C -19 , fou n d that R & R ’s
an d H u n ter’s ne g li g en ce for v iolati n g the F M C S R s w as n o t a pro x im a te c a u se a n d /or a p ro x im a te c o n trib u tin g c a u se o f th e d e a th o f P re sto n . T h is C o u rt fin d s th a t th e tria l c o u rt d id
n o t err by refu sing P -20 , as the re w as n o ev iden ce to su p p o rtthe in stru cti o n that the trac tortr a ile r c o u ld n o t b e o p e ra te d o r m o v e d s a fe ly a t t h e tim e it le ft R & R ’s lo t. Ca to , 15 So. 3d at 4 2 3 ; Y oung , 7 S o . 3 d a t 2 5 9 . 6. Jury I nst ruct i ons P- 21 and P - 29 ¶9 7. C ar l a ar gues t hatt he tr i a l c ou r te r r e d b y r e f us i ng j ury i ns t ruc t i on s P- 21 a nd P- 29,
w h ich c o n ce rne d “a n u n u su al co n d it ion o r em erg en cy . ” Ju ry instruction P -21 stated in p art that“gene r al l y w hen tw o vehi cl es a r e t r avel i ng i n t he s ame di r ect i on the dr i verof the s econd
v e h icle is n o t n e g lig e n t fo r strik in g th e re a r o f th e first v e h icle w h e n th e c o lli sio n is a re su lt of an un usual condi t i on oremer gency c r eat ed by the f i r s tvehi cl e. ” J ury i ns t ruct i on P- 29 stat ed in p art th at “[g]en era ll y , w h en tw o c ars are trav eli n g in th e sa m e d ir ec ti o n , the p ri m ary duty of avoi di ng col l i s i on r es t s w i t h t he s econd dr i veri n t he absence of an emer gency or unus ual condi t i on. ” T he tr i al courtr ef us ed both i ns t ruct i ons bas ed on i ns uf f i ci entevi dence . I n i t s po s t - tr i a l or de r , t he t r i a l c ou r ta l s o s t a t e d tha tt he l a c k o f r e f l e c t i ve t a pe , a s n ot e d i n P-

### 47

21, orfai l ur e t o compl y w i t h t he FM C SR s , as not ed i n P- 29, bor der ed on a theory of s tr i ct l i abi l i ty, and the l ack of r ef l ect i ve t ape w as nott he type of unus ual condi t i on oremer gency con t em plat ed i n t he st atute. T he tr i al cou rtal so found that the instruct i on s w ere s up erf l uo us. ¶98. T he t ri al co urtd i d no terrby r ef us i ng P- 21 and P- 29. T he j ury w as i ns t ruct ed that R & R and H unt erw er e negl i gentf orvi ol at i ng t he FM C SR s i n j ury i ns t ruct i on C
- 13. A f t er h e a rin g a ll th e e v id e n c e , inc lu d in g th a t th e tra iler h a d n o re fle c tiv e tap e , the ju ry fo u n d in f avorof R & R and H unt er , i ndi cat i ng thatthe l ack of r ef l ect i ve t ape a nd t he vi ol at i ons of the F M CS Rs we r e n o tt h e p r o x i ma t e c a u s e o rp r o x i ma t e c o n t r i b u t i n g c a u s e o f t h e c o l l i s i o n . No
o th e r fa c ts in fe rre d a n u n u su a l co n d iti o n o r e m e rg e n c y . T h e trial c o u rt h a s c o n sid e ra b le d is c re tio n w h e n in s tru c tin g th e ju ry . B i ckham , 86 1 S o. 2 d at 301. A t ri al j ud ge m ay ref use a p ro p o sed jury instruction that h as n o p rop er fo u n d ati o n in the ev iden ce b efo re the co u rt. Ca to , 1 5 S o . 3 d a t 4 2 3 ; Y oung , 7 S o . 3 d a t 2 5 9 . T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. 7 . J u ry In stru ction D -1 ¶9 9. C ar l a ar gued t hatt he t r i al cour te r r e d b y g i vi ng j ury i ns t ruc t i on D - 1, w hi ch w as su b m itt e d a s C -1 4 . S h e c laim s th a t th e in stru c tio n p lac e d a n a b so lu te d u ty o n P re sto n to a v o id the col l i s i on. C ar l a ci t ed t o W hi te v. Mil

ler , 5 1 3 S o . 2 d 6 0 0 , 6 0 1 (M iss . 1 9 8 7 ), fo r a u th o rity th a t a d ri v e r d o e s n o t h a v e a n a b s o lu te d u ty to a v o id a c o llis io n . ¶100. I n W

h ite , a v e h ic le tr a v e lin g in fr o n t o f th e W h ite s ’ v e h ic le m a d e a tu rn . W h ite , 513 So. 2d at601. T he W hi t es had s t opped thei rvehi cl e for at leas tt hi r t y s econds t o al l ow t he p re c e d in g v e h ic le to m a k e th e tu rn w h e n M ille r s tru c k th e re a r o f t h e W h ite s ’ v e h ic le . Id . M ill e r te stifie d th a t sh e w a s tra v e lin g o n e c a r le n g th b e h in d th e W h ites w h e n sh e sa w th e ir br ake l i ght s and they s t opped, how ever , w hen s he appl i ed herbra kes , she coul d nots t op her

### 48

v e h ic le . Id . H ow ever , the C our ti n W h ite cl ear l y m ade a di s t i nct i on betw een a vehi cl e that “s uddenl y dart s ” outi nt o t he path of a dr i verver s us an object , s uch as the W hi t es ’ vehi cl e, th a t is d is c e rn ib le a n d in th e ra n g e o f v is io n o r c le a rl y in th e d is ta n c e a h e a d o f a d ri v e r. Id . a t 6 0 1 -0 2 . T h is C o u rt sta ted : T hi s C our thas neve radopt ed a perse rul e t hatt he dr i verof the f ol l ow i ng car is n e g lig e n t if h e co lli d e s w ith the rea r o f a p re c e d in g v e h icle , n o r d o w e in th is cas e. R atherw e w oul d m i nd t he w arni ng s t at ed i n J o n e s v . H

a tch e tt , 504 So. 2d 198, 204 ( M i s s . 1987) , t hati ns t ruct i ons on a dr i ver ' s duty t o dr i ve ata s peed s uf f i ci ent l y s l ow t o enabl e hi m t o s t op w i t hi n hi s r ange of vi s i on “shou l d not be i nt erpr et ed orappl i ed t o i m po se on a dr i veran abs ol ut e duty t o avoi d a c o lli sio n . S u c h a n in terp re ta tio n w o u ld in d ica te th a t a d riv e r h a d a d u ty to a v o id a v e h ic le w h ic h su d d e n ly d a rt e d o u t in to h is p a th te n fe e t in fr o n t o f h im .” B uta ca rt hats uddenl y dart s i nt o a dr i ver ' s pa t h t en f eeti n f r ontof hi m i s not “an obj ectdi s cerni bl e i n t he r ange of hi s vi s i on or i n t he as s ur ed cl eardi s t ance ah ea d , ” a s w as th e W h it e v eh icl e in re lat ion to M rs. M il ler. Id . T hi s C our tr ever s ed the dec i s i on f orfa i l ur e t o di r ecta ver di cton t he i s s ue of negl i gence a n d re m a n d e d th e c a s e o n th e is s u e o f d a m a g e s . Id . at603. ¶1 0 1 . T h e tri al co u rtno ted C arla’s objecti o n an d st ated th at th e ca se law sup p o rt ed the w o rd “abs ol ut e” gi ven i n t he i ns t ruct i on. T he i ns t ruct i on s t at ed:

Y ou ar e i ns t ruct ed thatundert he l aw of t hi s s t at e a mot or i s thas an abs ol ut e duty t o see t hatw hi ch i s i n pl ai n vi ew oropen and appar entand t o t ake not i ce of obvi ous obj ect s and vehi cl es ahea d on a hi ghw ay. A mot or i s tal s o has a d u ty to b e a lerto n a h igh w ay an d h as n o ri g h t t o assu m e a h igh w ay is cl ea r. I f you f i nd f r om a pr eponder ance of the evi dence thatthe t r ai l erpul l ed by A nt hony Q . H unt erw oul d ha ve been vi s i bl e t o a r eas onabl y prudentdr i ver i n t he p os i t i on of

Pr e s t on U t z a ta po i ntw he r e t he a c c i de ntc ou l d h a ve be en a v o id e d th ro u g h the e x e rc ise o f re a so n a b le c a re , the n y o u m u st fin d P re sto n U tz w a s n e g lig e n t. I f you f i nd t hatnegl i gence on the partof Pr es t on U t z, if

any, w as t he so le pro x im ate c au se o f th e ac cide n t, then itis yo u r sw o rn o b li g ati o n to return a verdi ctfort he D efendan t s.

### 49 H o w e v e r, if y o u fin d tha t th is n e g lig e n c e o n th e p a rt o f P re sto n U tz, if any, w as a pr oxi m at e contr i but i ng caus e of the acc i dent , then you mustas s i gn a percentage of f

aultt o P res t on U t z, as explai ned l at er i n these i nst ruct i on s. ¶102. I n D ennis B

y and T hrough Cobb v. B olden , 606 S o. 2d 111, 113 - 114 ( M i s s . 1992) thi s C our thad hel d: T he dr i verof

a ca ri s char ged w i t h the duty of keepi ng a proper lookoutand b e in g o n a le rt fo r v e h ic le s , o b je c ts a n d p e rs o n s a h e a d in th e h ig h w a y . Fow ler B utane G as Co. v. V

ar ner , 2 4 4 M iss . 1 3 0 , 1 4 1 S o . 2 d 2 2 6 (1 9 6 2 ); B el k v. Ros am ond , 2 1 3 M iss . 6 3 3 , 5 7 S o . 2 d 4 6 1 (1 9 5 2 ). T h e d riv e r is c h a rg e d w ith th e a b s o lu te d u ty o f s e e in g w h a t h e s h o u ld h a v e s e e n . T i ppit v. Hunter , 205 S o . 2 d 2 6 7 (M iss . 1 9 6 7 ); Cam pb e l l v. Sc hm i dt , 1 9 5 S o . 2 d 8 7 (M iss. 1 9 6 7 ); L ayton v. Cook , 2 4 8 M iss . 6 9 0 , 1 6 0 S o . 2 d 6 8 5 (1 9 6 4 ). H e is a lso re q u ire d to h a v e h is c a r u n d e r p ro p e r c o n tro l, to b e o n th e a ler t o n th e h ig h w a y , an d a v o id s tr ik in g p la in o b

je c ts . B arkley v. Mil

lerT r anspor ters, I

nc. , 450 So. 2d 416 (M iss . 1 9 8 4 ); Shi delerv. T aylor , 2 9 2 S o . 2 d 1 5 5 (M iss. 1 9 7 4 ). B olden , 606 S o. 2d at113-14 ( emphasi s added) . W hi l e B olden s t at es t hatt he dr i verhas an

“ a b so lu te” d u ty to se e w h a t he sh o u ld h a v e se e n , the c a se law o n w h ich it relie s fo r a u th o rity d id n o t r e q u ir e a n “ a b s o lu te ” d u ty . Id . ( ci t i ng T i ppit v. Hunter , 2 0 5 S o . 2 d 2 6 7 (M iss. 1 9 6 7 ); Cam pbel l v. Schm idt , 19 5 S o . 2d 8 7 (M iss. 1 9 6 7 ); L ayton v. Cook , 248 M i s s . 690, 160 So. 2d 685 ( 1964) ) . N ot w i t hs t andi ng t he us e of t he t erm “abs ol ut e, ” gi vi ng t he i ns t ruct i on i s not
r ever s i bl e err or . B utf ort he us e of

“abs ol ut e, ” t he st at em entof l aw w as acc ur at e. T he i ns truct i on di d notpl ace , as C ar l a cl ai m ed, an abs ol ut e duty on Pr es t on t o a voi d the col l i s i on. T h e in stru c tio n p ro v id e d th a t th e ju ry s h o u ld fin d P re sto n n e g lig e n t o n ly if th e tra iler w o u ld h a v e b e e n v isib le to a re a so n a b ly p ru d e n t d riv e r in P re sto n ’s p o sitio n a n d th e a c c id e n t co u ld have be en avoi ded thr ough t he exe r ci s e of r eas onabl e ca r e. F urt her , C ar l a’ s ar gum entt hat W h ite pr ov i de s no a bs ol ut e du t y t o a vo i d a c ol l i s i on i s s omewhatmi s pl a c e d, be c a us e t he instruction d o es n o t con ce rn a v eh icl e fo ll o w ing too clos ely b eh ind an o ther, an d the re co rd

### 50

cont ai ns no f

act s t hatH unt er ’ s vehi cl e s uddenl y dar t ed i n f r ontof Pr es t on’ s ve hi cl e. W e f i nd th a t th e ins tru c tio n sh o u ld n o t ha v e inc lu d e d the term “ a b so lu te,” h o w e v e r, th e in stru c tio n d id
n o t r ise t o the lev el of rev ersible e rror. 8 . J u ry In stru ction D -2 ¶103. N ext , C ar l a ar gues t hatt he tr i al courterr ed by admi t t i ng i ns t ruct i on D - 2, s ubm i t t ed as C
- 15. She cl ai m s thatthe i ns t ruct i on w as per empt ory, a mi s s t at ementof l aw , a mi s s t at ement o f th e fa c ts, c u m u lativ e , co m p o u n d , an d p lac e d a n a b so lu te d u ty o n th e p lain tiff. T h is in stru c tio n sta ted , in p a rt: [ A ] m ot or i s th as a dut y t o oper at e hi s vehi cl e ata r eas onabl e r at e of s peed u n d e r th e c irc u m sta n c e s th e n c o n fro n tin g h im . A m o to rist a lso h a s a d u ty to keep a re as onabl e l ookoutt o the f r ontof hi s vehi cl e i n or dert o keep i tunder r eas onabl e and ea s y cont r ol and t o ant i ci pat e and e xpectt he pr es ence of other v e h ic le s in fr o n t if

h im o n th e ro a d w a y . . . . ¶1 04 . I n Church v. Mas s ey , 69 7 S o. 2d 40 7, 41 2 (M i ss. 19 97 ), t his C ou rtup held a j u ry i ns tructi on al m os ti dent i cal t o j ur y i ns t ruct i on D - 2, s ubm i t t ed atC
- 15. I n Mas s ey , the ju ry i ns truct i on s t at ed: Y ou ar e i ns t ruct ed thati tw as the duty of the Pl ai nt i f

f , G ary W . C hur ch t o dr i ve hi s m ot or cycl e ata r eas onabl e r at e of s peed unde rt he ci rcumst ance s t hen conf r ont i ng hi m . I tw as a l s o hi s duty t o ke ep a r eas onabl e l ookoutt o t he f r ont and s i des of

hi s movi ng m ot or cycl e t o keep i tunderr eas onabl e and e as y contr ol and ant i ci pat e and e xpectt he pr es ence of ot hervehi cl es w hi ch w er e al s o us i ng 8th St r eetatt he s ame t i m e. Mas s ey , 6 9 7 S o . 2 d a t 4 1 2 . See a l so Fielderv. Magnolia B eve r age Co. , 757 So. 2d 925, 935- 3 6 (M iss . 1 9 9 9 ). C a rla c o rre c tly sta ted th a t Mas s ey h eld that the failure to y iel d the righ t- o fw a y a n d fa ilu re to m a in ta in p ro p e r l o o k o u t a re tw o se p a ra te th e o ri e s o f l ia b ility . Mas s ey , 697 So. 2d at411. H ow ever , s he al s o ar gues thatthe i ns t ruct i on thatw as gi ven w as compound.

### Th e instru ction s are summarizedas follo ws: 12 

### D-1 sub mitted as C-1 4: moto rist’s ob ligatio n to see that wh ich is in p lain vie w, duty to beal ert, and cannot as sum e a highway is cl ear. D - 2 s ub m i tt e d a s C
- 1 5 : motor is t’ s duty to oper at e his veh icle at a reason able rat e of sp eed, k eep a reaso nab le loo ko ut, k eep it und er reason able an d easy control, andexpect the p resence o f oth er veh icle in f ront of hi m on t

he roadway. D- 3 s ub m i tt e d a s C- 16 : mot ori st ’s dutyto drive his vehic le at a rate of speedno t greater th at the p ostedspeedlimit. D - 5 s ub m i tt e d a s C
- 1 7 : if a mot ori s t c ann ot s t op hi s v e hi cl e wi thi n the rang e of hi s vi si on, heis re quired t o re ducehis spe ed. D-6 s ubmi tted a s C- 18: vis ibi li ty of thetrai le r t o a drive r keeping a prope r lookout and f rom a distan cein whi ch the drive r reason ablycou ld h ave av oid ed runn ing into it. 51 Ju ry in stru c tio n D -2 w a s p ro p e r b e c a u s e it w a s s im ilar to lan g u a g e th is C o u rt a ffirm e d in Mas s ey . I n Mas s ey , one of t he i s s ues w as w hethert he tr i al cour terr ed by r ef us i ng a “l ookout ” theory of

negl i gence on t he bas i s thati tw as ade quat el y cover ed i n another in s tru c tio n , P -3 . Id . T h is C o u rt fo u n d th a t ju ry in stru c tio n P -3 a d d re ss e d th e fa ilu re to y ield th e ri g h t- o f- w a y o n ly , a n d n o t th e fa ilu re to k e e p a re a s o n a b le lo o k o u t. Id . T h e C o u rt
re v e rs e d a n d re m a n d e d p a rt ly d u e to th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s re fu s a l o f a lo o k o u t in s tru c tio n . Id . at 414- 15. T he i ns t ruct i ons as gi ven di d notadequa t el y i ns t ructt he jury on t he theor i es of lia b ility . Id . a t 4 1 1 . ¶1 05 . T he f

actt hatj ur y i ns t r uct i on C- 15 may be compound does noti nval i dat e t he i ns truct i on. Fur t her , t he instruct i on w as notcumul at i ve, as eac h of R & R ’ s i ns t ruct i ons c o v e re d d iffe re n t leg a l p rin c ip les . T h e in stru c tio n a lso d o e s n o t p lac e a n “ a b so lu te” d u ty 12
o n th e p lain tiff; ind e e d th e ter m “a b so lu te” is n o t in th e in stru c tio n . A lso , the th e ju ry c o u ld

### 52

have i nf err ed t hatP r es t on di d notoper at e hi s vehi cl e ata re as onabl e r at e of spee d gi ven the ci r cum st ance, orf

ai l ed t o keep a r eas onabl e l ookout , orf ai l ed t o keep hi s vehi cl e under
re a so n a b le a n d e a sy c o n tro l, or fa iled to e x p e c t th e p re se n c e o f o th e r v e h icle in fro n t o f h im b a se d o n the ev id e n c e . T h e ju ry c o u ld h a v e in fe rre d th a t P re sto n fa iled to o p e ra te th e v e h icle
a t a re a so n a b le r a te o f sp e e d u n d e r th e c irc u m sta n c e s c o n fro n tin g h im o n th a t n ig h t. L ikew ise, T roo p er S h ive testi fi ed th at he co u ld ea sil y see the l igh ts from th e tru ck at a dis t ance a nd t he li gh t s w ere “gl ow i ng . ” R i chard st ated tha t he cou l d see t he truck l i gh t s a m i l e dow n t he r oad. I n addi t i on, the j ury ha d numer ous phot ogr aphs of the t ruck atthe s cene of the ac ci dentdepi ct i ng t he l i ghts on the bac k of the truck. T he j ury al s o hear d t es t i m ony thatthe truck w as w hi t e and thatt he col l i s i on occurr ed on an e i ght
- t enths of a mi l e s ect i on o f a flat , D elta ro a d w a y . G iven the fa cts p rese n ted to the ju ry, th e ins tru cti o n w as p rop er. T hi s C our tf

i nds t hatt he tr i al courtdi d note r rby gi vi ng j ury i ns t ruct i on C
- 15, and thi s i s s ue is w ith o u t m e rit. 9 . J u ry In stru ction D -3 ¶106. C ar l a cont ends t hatt he t r i al cour ter r ed by adm i t t i ng j ury i ns t ruct i on D - 3, s ubm i t t ed as C -16 . S h e a rgu ed that instruction im p o sed a stri ct-l iabili ty stan d ard a n d a p ere m p tory s t andar d. T hi s i ns t ruct i on r ef err ed t o a m ot or i s t ’ s dut y t o dr i ve a ve hi cl e w i t hi n t he s peed l i m i t . T he i ns t ruct i on s t at ed:

Y o u a re in stru c ted th a t un d e r th e law o f th is s tate a m o to rist h a s a d u ty to d riv e h is v e h icle a t a r a te o f sp e e d n o t gr e a ter tha t th e p o ste d sp e e d lim it. If you f i nd t hatPres t on U t z, atthe t i m e he c onf r ont ed the tr ai l erpul l ed by A n th o n y Q . H u n ter , w a s tra v e lin g a t a s p e e d in e x c e ss o f th e p o ste d sp e e d lim it o f 6 5 m ile s p e r h o u r, then y o u m u s t f in d th a t P re s to n U tz w a s n e g lig e n t.

### 53 I f you f i nd t hatt hi s negl i gence on the par tof Pr es t on U t z, i f

a ny, w as t he so le p rox im ate ca u se o f the a cc iden t, the n itis y o u r sw o rn o b li g ati o n to return a verdi ctfort he D efendan t s. H o w e v e r, if y o u fin d th a t th is n e g lig e n c e o n the p a rt o f P re sto n U tz, if any, w as a pr oxi m at e contr i but i ng c aus e of the ac ci dent , t hen you mustas s i gn a p e rc e n ta g e o f f

a u lt to P re s to n U tz , a s e x p la in e d la te r i n th e s e in s tru c tio n s . ( E m phas i s a dded. ) T he t r i al c our tde t erm i ned t hatc as el aw s uppor t ed t he i ns t ruct i on w hi ch
e ss e n tially im p o s e d n e g lig e n c e , n o t stric t li a b ili ty , if P re sto n h a d e x c e e d e d th e sp e e d lim it
a n d /o r f a ile d to k e e p a p ro p e r l o o k o u t a n d c o n tr o l o f h is v e h ic le . See Fiel der , 757 S o. 2d at 935- 36 ( M i ss. 1 99 9); M i s s . C ode A nn. § 63- 3- 501 ( R ev. 2004) . T he i ns t ruct i on w as not per empt ory by i ns t ruct i ng t he j ur y t hat“you mustfi nd thatPr es t on U t z w as negl i gent ” as C a rla as se rts in h e r a rg u m e n t. In ste a d th e in stru c tio n p ro v id e s th a t “ I f you f i nd t hatPr es t on U tz . . . w a s tr a v e lin g a t a s p e e d in e x c e s s o f th e p o s te d s p e e d lim it o f 6 5 m ile s p e r h o u r, then you m us tf

i nd t hatPr es t on U t z w as ne gl i gent . ” ( E m phas i s a dded. ) T hi s condi t i onal l anguage do es not com pel the jury t o fi nd negli gen ce on t he partof Pres t on . T he p l ai n langua ge als o di d notpl ace the b urden on Pr es t on t o avoi d the ac ci dentr egar dl es s of w hetherR & R and H unt erw er e atfa ul t , as a r gued by C ar l a. A ddi t i onal l y, t her e i s no per empt ory l anguage that
r equi r es that“you mustas s i gn a per cent age of f aul tt o Pr es t on U t z. ” W hen the i ns t ruct i on w a s re a d in c o n tex t, th e c o n d iti o n a l lan g u a g e p lain ly sta ted th a t “ if y o u fin d th a t h is
n e g lig e n c e o n th e p a rt o f P re s to n U tz , i f any , w as a pr oxi m at e contri bu t i ng caus e of the acci den t , then yo u m ustassi gn a percentage of f aultt o P res t on U t z, as explai ned l at er i n these in stru c tio n s.” F u rth e r, th e lan g u a g e re q u ire d th a t a p e rc e n tag e o f fa u lt b e a s s e s s e d o n ly if P re sto n ’s n e g lig e n c e w a s a “ p ro x im a te c o n trib u tin g c a u se ” a n d d id n o t re q u ire th e ju ry to

### The j ury instruc ti on in Ch octa w M aid stated: 13 Y ou ar e i ns t ruct ed thatunderthe l aw of the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi thatw hen a dr i ver ' s vi s i on i s r educe d orbl i nded t o the ext entthathe ca nnots ee i n f r ontof h im a t a d ista n c e w ith in w h ich h e c a n sto p h is c a r a t th e ra te o f sp e e d h e is tr avel i ng, he i s r equi r ed t o r educe sp eed and br i ng hi s carw i t hi n s uch s peed s o thathe ca n s t op w i t hi n t he r ange of hi s vi s i on. U ndert he ci r cumst ance s exi s t i ng on J ul y 18, 1996, i f you bel i eve thatT hom as H a iley ' s v isio n w a s re d u c e d o r b lin d e d to th e e x ten t th a t h e c o u ld n o t se e in fro n t o f h im a t a d ista n c e w ith in w h ich h e co u ld red u c e h is sp e e d a n d sto p h is vehi cl e, t hen he ha d a dut y t o r educe hi s s peed and br i ng hi s vehi cl e t o a s peed in w h ich h e c o u ld sto p h is v e h icle w ith in h is r a n g e o f v isio n . If h e fa iled in th is duty, t hen he w as negl i gent . I f you bel i eve thatt hi s negl i gence , i f any, 

### 54 re liev e R & R a n d H u n ter o f a n a ss e s s m e n t o f fa u lt u n les s th e ra te o f sp e e d w a s th e so le p ro x im a te c a u se o f th e a c c id e n t. A c c o rd in g ly th is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. 1 0 . J u ry In stru ction D -5 ¶ 1 0 7 . N e x t, C a rla a rg u e s th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d b y a d m itt in g D -5 , su b m itt e d a s C -1 7 . T h is in stru c tio n c o n c e rn e d a m o to rist’ s a b ility to tra v e l o r re d u c e h is s p e e d to sto p h is v e h icle
w i thi n hi s r ange of

vi s i on. C ar l a cont ends t hatt hi s i ns t ruct i on w as err oneous beca us e i ts t at ed i n part“I f

you f i nd f r om a pr eponder ance of the evi dence thatunderthe ci r cumst ance s e x istin g o n D e c e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 3 , P re sto n U tz c o u ld n o t se e in fro n t of h im at a d ista n c e w ith in
w hi ch he c oul d r educe his speed an d bri ng hi s vehi cl e t o a s peed i n w hi ch he c oul d s t op w i thi n hi s r ange of

vi s i on. . . ” C ar l a ar gues t hati tw as a mi s s t at ementof l aw and f

act s , and tha t the tri al co u rtl im it ed t esti m o n y an d pro h ibit ed st atem en ts ab o u t w h at w as v isib le to P re s to n U tz . ¶ 1 0 8 . T h is C o u rt h a s u p h e ld sim ila r la n g u a g e in o th e r c a s e s . See Ch o c ta w Ma id , 822 So. 2 d a t 9 2 0 . F u rth e r, th e e v id e n c e sh o w e d th a t th e lig h ts o f th e tra c to r-tra iler w e re v isib le

13c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e a c c i d e n t , t h e n y o u s h a l l a s s i g n a p e r c e n t a g e o f f a u l tt o h i m. Ch o c ta w Ma id , 822 So. 2d at920. 

### 55 f r om a f ardi s t ance . T he r oadw ay on t hatpor t i on of H i ghw ay 61 w as f

l atand cl ear . B as ed on the i m pactof

t he cr as h, Bent l ey opi ned thatPr es t on m ay have been tr avel i ng as m uch as ei ghty- f i ve m i l es perhour. I n addi t i on, t her e w as no i ndi cat i on of a ny gouge ors ki d m arks on t he r oad, i ndi cat i ng l i t t l e i f any m aneuve r i ng by Pr es t on t o avoi d t he col l i s i on. T he tr i al
c o u rt d id n o t e rr b y g iv in g th is in s tru c tio n . 1 1 . J u ry In stru ction D -6 ¶109. C ar l a next cont ends t hat t he t r i al cour t err ed by gi vi ng j ury i ns t ruct i on D - 6, s ubm i t t ed
a s C -1 8 . T h is in stru c tio n sta ted in p a rt: I f you f i nd f r om a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence t hatt he tr ai l erpul l ed by A nthony Q . H unt erw oul d have be en vi s i bl e t o a dr i ver ke epi ng a pr oper l ookoutf

orvehi cl es i n t he r oadw ay f r om a di s t ance i n w hi ch thatdr i ver r eas onabl y coul d have a voi ded runni ng i nt o i t , then i ti s yours w orn dut y t o f i nd th a t P re sto n U tz w a s n e g lig e n t. T h is in s tru c tio n fo llo w s M is s is s ip p i la w . See Ch o ctaw Ma id , 822 So. 2d at919 ( ci t i ng B utlerv. Chre s t

m an , 264 So. 2d 812, 815 ( M i s s . 1972) ) ( “The gener al rul e i s w el l es t abl i s hed thati ti s negl i gence f

ora mot or i s tt o oper at e an aut om obi l e on a hi ghw ay ats uch s peed that it ca n n o t b e sto p p e d w ith in th e ra n g e o f th e d riv e r' s v isio n .”); B olden , 606 So. 2d at111 (“[t ] h e d ri v er o f a c ar is ch arg ed w ith the d u ty o f ke ep ing a p rop er loo k o u t and b eing o n alert fo r v e h icle s, o b

jec ts a n d p e rso n s a h e a d in th e h ig h w a y ” a n d “ d u ty o f se e in g w h a t h e sh o u ld have s een” and duty “t o have hi s carunderprope rcont r ol , t o be on the al erton t he hi ghw ay, a n d a v o id s tr ik in g p la in o b je c ts ” ).

### 56

¶ 1 1 0 . Ag a i n , t h e e v i d e n c e wa s t h a tth e l i g h t s o f th e tr a c t o r - t r a i l e rwe r e v i s i b l e f r o m a di s t ance , the r oadw ay w as str ai ghtatt he ar ea of i m pact , and t her ef

or e, t her e w as m or e than
e n o u g h tim e to c h a n g e la n e s . T h e tr ia l c o u rt d id n o t e rr b y g iv in g th is in s tru c tio n . 12. Jury I nst ruct i on C - 19 ( s peci al i nt err ogat ory) ¶11 1. C arl a contends that the t ri al courterred by gi ving j ury i nst ruct i on C -19, w hich w as a s peci al i nt err ogat or y ver di ctf or m . She cont ends t hatt he instruct i on f i nds t hatR & R and H unt erw er e negl i gentf orvi ol at i ng t he FM C SR s onl y t o r equi r e the j ury t o f i nd t hatthe f ai l ur e w as t he pr oxi m at e ca us e. She contends thatthi s s t andar d i s i m pos s i bl e bec aus e the tr i al cour tr ef

us ed t o al l ow evi dence t hatthe vi ol at i ons w er e the ca us e of Pr es t on’ s death. ¶112. T he s peci al i nt err ogat or y i s w i t hi n t he t r i al cour t ’ s di s cr et i on pur s uant t o M i s s i s s i ppi R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 4 9 . See a l so Mis s ala Mar ine Ser vs . , I nc. v. O dom , 861 So. 2d 290, 296 (M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng W .J . R u ny o n & S o n , In c . v. D a v is , 6 0 5 S o . 2 d 3 8 , 4 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ),
overrul ed on othergr ounds ) ( “the dec i s i on t o i ns t ructthe j ury by m eans of a s peci al ver di ct ora gene r al ver di ctw i t h i nt err ogat or i es i s w i t hi n t he di s cr et i on of t he tr i al cour tand w i l l be
o v erturn ed o n ly o n a sh o w ing that the lo w er c o u rtab u sed it s d iscreti o n ”). ¶ 1 1 3 . Ju ry in stru c tio n C -1 9 sta ted in p a rt: I n r etur ni ng yourver di ctcons i s t entw i t h t he i ns t ruct i ons of l aw gi ven t o you by thi s C our t , you s houl d ans w erthe f ol l ow i ng ques t i ons , eac h ans w erbei ng bas ed u p o n a prepon derance o f the ev i den ce and agreed to you by nine or m em b ers ( s i c) of t he J ur y. Q U E S T IO N N O . 1: T he C ou rthas i nst ruct ed y ou that the D efendan t s, R u n n in g & R o llin g T ru c k in g , In c ., a n d A n th o n y Q . H u n ter w e re n e g lig e n t in fa ili n g to c o m p ly w ith th e re q u ire m e n ts o f th e F e d e ra l M o to r C a rrie r S a fe ty R egu l at i on s. D o y ou fi nd t hat that s uch neg li g en ce w as a prox i m at e cause a n d / o rp r o x i ma t e c o n tr i b u t i n g c a u s e o f th e d e a t h o f

th e d e c e a s e d P r e s t o n J i mmy U t z?

### 57 CH E CK ANS W E R: ________ Ye s

_________No I f you ans w er“N o” t o Q ues t i on 1, pl eas e advi s e the B ai l i f f that y o u h a v e re a c h e d a v e rd ict. I f you ans w er“yes ” t o t he above ques t i on, pl eas e ans w er Q U E ST I O N 2. T h e ju ry a n sw e re d “ N o ” to the q u e stio n . C a rla ’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e in stru c tio n w a s in c o rre c t,
a m is s ta te m e n t o f l a w , a n d m is le a d in g to th e ju ry is w ith o u t m e ri t. ¶114. T hi s C our tpr evi ous l y addr es s ed the i s s ue of negl i gence . E ven t hough negl i gence w as e sta b lish e d b y R & R a n d H u n terfo r fa ilu re to c o m p ly w ith th e F M C S R s, M iss iss ip p i law still
r equi r ed thatt he negl i gence w as the pr oxi m at e caus e and/ orpr oxi m at e contr i but i ng caus e of th e in ju ry , P re s to n ’s d e a th , in o rd e r to r e c o v e r. T hom as , 667 So. 2d at596- 97 ( ci t i ng Bry ant
v. A l pha E ntm ’ t

Cor p. , 508 So. 2d 1094, 1096 ( M i s s . 1987) ) . T hi s por t i on of the i ns t ruct i on i s al s o i n keepi ng w i t h j ur y i ns t ruct i ons C
- 4 on the def i ni t i on o f negli gence , C
- 10 on pr oxi m at e caus e, and ver y cl os el y m i r r or s C
- 13 on R & R ’ s and hunt er ’ s negl i gence i n f ai l i ng to c o m p ly w ith th e F M C S R s a n d w h e th e r th a t fa ilu re w a s th e p ro x im a te a n d /o r p ro x im a te contr i but i ng caus e of

P r es t on’ s death. A s forC ar l a’ s as s ert i on thati ti s i m pos s i bl e t o s how the stan d ard th at th e n eg li g en ce o n the p art of R & R an d H u n ter pro x im ately c au sed the in jury beca us e the tr i al courtr ef us ed t o al l ow ev i den ce tha tthe vi ol at i ons w er e the ca us e of P reston ’s de ath, th ese co n ce rns o therw ise h av e b ee n ad d resse d in p rev io u s iss u es a n d are w ith o u t m e rit. 1 3 . J u ry In stru ction s D -1, D -2, D -3, D -5, an d D -6 ¶115. C ar l a cl ai m s thatthe t r i al c our te r r ed by gi vi ng j ury i ns t ruct i ons D - 1, D - 2, D - 3, D - 5, and D
- 6. S he cont ends t hatt he i ns t ruct i ons w er e cumul at i ve and w hen r ead a s a w hol e,

### 58

pl ace d a duty on Pr es t on t o s ee the tr ai l erand avoi d the ac ci dent w hi ch w as per empt or y, im p o s e d a s tr ic t- lia b ility s ta n d a rd , a n d w e re a m is s ta te m e n t o f t h e la w a n d fa c ts . ¶116. T hi s C our t f

i nds t hat t he t r i al cour t di d not err by gi vi ng t hes e i ns t ruct i ons f orr eas ons a lr e a d y e x p re s s e d in p re v io u s is s u e s b e fo re th is C o u rt . CO NC L US I ON ¶117. Fort he above r eas ons , t he j udgm entof t he C i rcui tC our tof B ol i varC ount y, Second J udi ci al D i s t r i cti s af

f i r m ed. ¶ 1 1 8 . A F F I R M E D . CARL S ON AND GRAVE S , P . J J . , RANDOL P H, LA M AR, KI TC HENS AND P I E RC E , J J . , CO NC UR . W AL LE R, C. J . , AN D D I CK I NS ON , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .