Opinion ID: 1883935
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hawkins's Alleged Prior Injury.

Text: ¶ 23. Victor Hawkins, a former maintenance employee of DuPont's DeLisle plant, testified that he had worked for DuPont for eighteen years, until November 25, 1997. Hawkins retired on long-term medical disability. Hawkins testified concerning his personal injury suffered in a maintenance-related accident. DuPont objected to Hawkins's testimony regarding his injuries at DuPont's DeLisle plant. Over DuPont's objections as to relevance, Hawkins was allowed to testify that at some undisclosed date, he was injured when a tank fell and caused the side of the tank to explode. ¶ 24. Hawkins testified that he was burned on his arm and from his neck to his belt area by the hydrochloric acid that sprayed out of the tank. Hawkins said he was transported to the hospital and treated, being wrapped for burns. DuPont again logged its continuing objection to relevancy. Hawkins tried to testify as to what some undisclosed member of the plant's safety personnel told him at the hospital. DuPont objected to the testimony as hearsay. Hawkins was allowed to testify that he was required to return to work, despite DuPont's objection as to relevance. Hawkins testified that he returned to the plant to prevent his absence from being counted as a lost workday. ¶ 25. DuPont argues that Hawkins, a disgruntled former employee, had no legitimate purpose in testifying about his alleged injury at DuPont's DeLisle plant. DuPont contends that Hawkins's alleged injury was unrelated to claims asserted by the Strongs at trial, and that this testimony unfairly prejudiced the jury against it. This Court has consistently ruled that `the relevancy and admissibility of evidence are largely within the discretion of the trial court and reversal may be had only where that discretion has been abused.' Buel v. Sims, 798 So.2d 425, 427 (Miss.2001) (quoting Martindale v. Wilbanks, 744 So.2d 252, 253 (Miss.1999)). Unless the trial judge's discretion is so abused as to be prejudicial to a party, this Court will not reverse his or her ruling. Buel, 798 So.2d at 427. ¶ 26. Allowing this irrelevant line of testimony over DuPont's repeated contemporaneous objections was error. See M.R.E. 402 (All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Mississippi, or by these rules. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. ). (Emphasis added). ¶ 27. Therefore as such, we find that the trial court abused its discretion and erred in allowing this line of testimony concerning Hawkins's personal, on-the-job injury while he was an employee at the DuPont DeLisle plant.